Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ADEN.

Captain CAZALET: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what further steps, if any, have been taken in regard to the future administration of the port of Aden?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The question of the future of Aden is now before the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Captain CAZALET: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present number of Indians in the Indian Civil Service, and how many are actually employed at the present moment in an administrative capacity as commissioners, district commissioners, or collectors?

Mr. BUTLER: According to the latest available civil lists issued by the various provincial governments, there are 394 Indians in the Indian Civil Service. In addition, 127 Indian members of the provincial services and officers recruited from the Bar are permanently employed in Indian Civil Service posts, making a total of 521. Of these, two are shown as being actually employed as commissioners, and 105 as deputy commissioners or collectors.

EARTHQUAKE (BIHAR).

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is satisfied that adequate measures have been adopted, and that effective reconstructive works
are in process, in relation to the recent earthquake disaster in Bihar?

Mr. BUTLER: As announced by the Finance Member of the Government of India in his Budget speech last week, a comprehensive plan has been worked out by the Government of India and the Government of Bihar in consultation, covering the reconstruction of Government buildings, financial assistance to local authorities and relief to private sufferers. A special commissioner has, I understand, been appointed by the Bihar Government, and, with the financial assistance given from central revenues, I have no doubt that the work of reconstruction will be vigorously taken up.

Mr. HANNON: Does the answer mean that everything possible is being done by the Government of India and the Government of Bihar to deal with the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen in that part of India?

Mr. BUTLER: I am confident that every possible step is being taken by those two Governments to meet this catastrophe.

BENGAL ORDINANCES (DEATH PENALTY).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has been in communication with the Government of Bengal regarding the legislation now brought forward to give permanent form to the Bengal ordinances; and whether he will withhold his approval from the extension of the death penalty proposed in the new Bill?

Mr. BUTLER: This Bill was introduced in the Bengal Council with the previous sanction of the Governor-General and with my right hon. Friend's approval. It was referred to a Select Committee on 1st February, but I have not yet received information of its further progress. Obviously, I can make no statement of any kind at this stage.

DÉTENUS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of détenus consigned to the Andamans during the last 12 months; whether it is intended to bring all or any of them to trial in the near future; and whether it is proposed that this convict settlement is to be used for incarcerating political offenders and persons under suspicion of political offences?

Mr. BUTLER: No détenus have been, or are being, transferred to the Andamans.

Mr. GRENFELL: Have any détenus been sent to the Andamans during the last 12 months?

Mr. BUTLER: It has not been the practice to send détenus to the Andamans.

Mr. GRENFELL: Are there any persons in the Andamans who have been charged but not brought to trial?

Mr. BUTLER: It has been the habit to send terrorist convicts to the Andamans and not détenus or those awaiting trial.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. T. SMITH: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Henry Pu-Yi has been crowned first Emperor of Manchukuo and will shortly visit Tokio; and whether, in view of the League of Nations Assembly Report of 24th February, 1933, he will give the House the assurance that the British Ambassador in Tokio will receive instructions not to attend any reception or other function given in honour of Mr. Pu-Yi during his visit to Tokio?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am aware of the recent enthronement in Manchuria of the ex-Emperor of China. No report has been received of his impending visit to Tokio, but the obligations undertaken by the States adhering to the resolution of the 24th February, 1933, are well known and will presumably govern their action.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I take it from that answer that this occasion will not be one upon which our Ambassador in Tokio will in any way recognise Mr. Henry Pu-Yi as the Emperor of Manchukuo?

Sir J. SIMON: As I have indicated, the question is entirely a hypothetical one as I have no report as to the intended visit, but, suppose that such a thing takes place, my answer is complete. The obligations undertaken by the States in regard to Manchukuo—by many other States besides our own—have been entered into, and will be observed.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arising from the recent conversations abroad of the Lord Privy Seal, he will make a statement on the recent position of the question of disarmament?

Sir J. SIMON: The Lord Privy Seal has now returned from his visits to Paris, Rome and Berlin, which were made for the purpose of explaining the point of view of His Majesty's Government in regard to disarmament as set out in their Memorandum of the 29th January, and of learning by direct contact what was the attitude of the three other Governments to the proposals it contains. The results of these visits are of importance, but His Majesty's Government are not yet in full possession of the views of all the Powers concerned and would prefer not to make a Parliamentary statement until the information is complete.

Mr. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement which has appeared in the newspapers, that France has said a definite "No" in regard to disarmament?

Sir J. SIMON: I have not seen the report in that form, but, if the report is in that form, I do not thing that it will be at all correct.

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.

Mr. HANNON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the latest developments in the relations between Austria and Germany, in view of the recent declaration of policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no special information of recent developments in the relations between Austria and Germany.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a softening of asperity between the two countries since the policy of His Majesty's Government was declared?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that I can give an addition to my previous answer in regard to that. It is very dangerous to answer these questions without careful consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether His Majesty's representative in Vienna has made any representations to the Foreign Office about Mr. Citrine's recent visit to Vienna, of which His Majesty's Government was made officially aware?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer is in the negative. Mr. Citrine has, so far as I know, not visited Vienna since October.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the statement that appeared in the Press recently as made by M. Jouhaux is not only entirely without foundation, but is based solely upon his own vivid imagination?

Sir J. SIMON: I believe that that is the case.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LEWIS: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state, as a percentage of benefit paid, the cost of administration of his Department for each of the past five years?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The cost of administration as a percentage of benefit expenditure is as follows: 1929, 2.5 per cent.; 1930, 2.4 per cent.; 1931, 2.2 per cent.; 1932, 1.9 per cent.; 1933, 1.8 per cent. The last figure is estimated. It will be seen that the cost has been steadily reduced.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the Minister give the House an idea of the total savings effected?

Major TRYON: I could not give an exact figure, but, at the highest point, this country was spending over £6,000,000 on administration. In the present year the cost of administration is about £800,000, so that the saving on administration amounts to over £5,000,000 per year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 15.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what arrangements have been made with the Russian Soviet Government to secure the revenue from loss and to rectify the handicap now suffered by
British traders in competition with the Russian trade delegation, by reason of the fact that this trade organisation is exempt from the payment of Income Tax as it is maintained by a foreign Government and claims diplomatic immunity?

Sir J. SIMON: I have been asked to reply. Under the general principles of international law, as interpreted by the courts in this country, any foreign Government trading organisation, as such, is exempt from the payment of Income Tax; and the negotiations for the temporary Trade Agreement with the Soviet Government did not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, afford a suitable opportunity for requesting that Government to waive any rights they possessed in such matters. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that the great bulk of Soviet trading in this country is actually conducted through agents, such as Arcos and similar companies registered here, who pay tax on their profits, the trade delegation acting in a merely supervisory capacity.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that this trading is undertaken by the State as a whole and is of considerable magnitude, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is desirable that special arrangements should be made in this matter, which is not similar to what obtains in the case of other foreign countries?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter has been considered not only by my Department but by the Treasury and other Departments involved, and we are clearly of the view that this is trading by agents appointed by the country concerned—that is, from the point of view of Income Tax.

PRISON-MADE BRUSHES.

Mr. McENTEE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the London County Council is purchasing brushes from His Majesty's Prison Commissioners that have been made by prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs Prison; and whether he will stop the practice of selling these prison-made brushes and thus aid manufacturers in the brush-making industry and their work people in carrying on their trade?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Since the Gladstone Committee of 1895, it has been the settled policy that prisoners shall be employed on productive work. The bulk of that work is done for Government Departments, but from time to time it is necessary in order to keep prisoners employed to undertake a small amount of other work. The amount of such work done in the brush-making shop is so very small that it can have no appreciable effect on the brush-making industry.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that workmen ordinarily engaged in the brush-making trade to-day are coming to the conclusion that if you want a job you have to go to prison to get it?

CIGARETTE COUPONS.

Mr. HANNON: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the circulation in packages of a certain cigarette known as Kensitas of coupons representing the flags of the British Empire, with the words "Printed in U.S.A." at the bottom; and if the appropriate duty is being collected on the importation of these coupons printed in a foreign country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. HANNON: That being so, does my hon. Friend know of any reason why these cards should not be printed in this country instead of being imported from the United States?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I know of no reason, but, because they are not printed in this country, they pay a duty.

IMPORT DUTIES (GRANITE).

Mr. PETHERICK: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has yet received a report from the Import Duties Advisory Committee respecting the application for increased duties on imported granite; if so, upon what date it was received; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 22nd May last to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Emrys-Evans), of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LIVE STOCK COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, owing to the low prices prevailing for fat cattle, he can state when the report of the Live Stock Commission will be available for action?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I hope to receive the report of the Reorganisation Commission for Fat Stock by the end of this month.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the Minister give any indication of the course of prices and of the influence it exercises upon the general plan?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot.

DAIRY HERDS (TUBERCULOSIS).

Captain ELLISTON: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage of milch cows in the dairy herds of this country are infected with, tuberculosis; and how soon the present methods of veterinary supervision may be expected to ensure the eradication of this disease among cattle?

Mr. ELLIOT: There is no information available upon which to base a firm estimate giving the information required. The measures now in force are designed to remove animals in a stage of disease which renders them dangerous to public health and to other animals, and not primarily for the eradication of disease as such.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR MAIL CHARGES (INDIA).

Captain CAZALET: 19.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he contemplates altering the rate of air postage to India to a flat rate of 7d. per half-ounce instead of 6d., owing to the confusion which now arises as a result of the surcharge for any distance further than Karachi?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have recently had this matter under consideration; but so long as a large number of users are satisfied with the acceleration secured by air transmission as far as Karachi only, for which the air postage is 6d for the first half-ounce and 5d. for each additional half-ounce, I should be reluctant to impose a flat rate involving an increase in those charges.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of the users are not aware that the delay is occasioned by only sending via Karachi, and, in view of the extensive air service that has recently been developed in India, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I will gladly confer with my hon. and gallant Friend who, I know, has some knowledge on the matter, but there is difficulty, as he will appreciate, in increasing the charges of the service.

LOSS OR DAMAGE (COMPENSATION).

Mr. LEWIS: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General for each of the last five years the amount paid by the Post Office as compensation for loss or damage to parcels and registered letters?

Sir K. WOOD: The particulars desired are as follow:

£


1928–29
…
…
…
20,828


1929–30
…
…
…
21,838


1930–31
…
…
…
22,589


1931–32
…
…
…
18,059


1932–33
…
…
…
17,536

Details will be found in the published Appropriation Accounts for the Revenue Departments.

FACILITIES, BARLOW MOOR, MANCHESTER.

Mr. FLEMING: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to give any further information with regard to the provision of a branch post office on the Barlow Moor housing estates at Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester?

Sir K. WOOD: Applications for the position of sub-postmaster are being invited from persons residing in or near Merseybank Avenue. The closing date for applications is 9th March.

LONDON SUBURBS (SUNDAY COLLECTIONS).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS (for Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS): 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether arrangements are being made to ensure that letters posted in the chief London suburbs by the earlier collection on Sundays shall be delivered throughout the whole of England and Wales by the first post next morning; and if he can state the date upon which this service is to be started?

Sir K. WOOD: There has been for some years past an afternoon collection on Sundays from a limited number of letter boxes throughout the London Postal District, connecting with the first delivery on Monday in all parts of England and Wales. A restricted collection on similar lines is being introduced experimentally in a section of the Outer London area (including Croydon and Bromley), and if the scheme proves successful I propose to extend it to the remainder of the Outer London belt. The first stage of the new service was actually put into force yesterday.

BISHOPS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. McENTEE: 26.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the sum of £37,940 10s. entered on page 2 of the 85th Annual Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as deductions from payments made to bishops includes any amount in respect of the economy cuts; and if so, what is the amount?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The figure quoted represents solely Income Tax deducted from certain stipends paid by the Commissioners.

EDUCATION (BLACKBOARDS, LONDON SCHOOLS).

Mr. McENTEE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London County Council is now purchasing German laminated boards for use as blackboards in London schools, in substitution for Canadian yellow-pine boards, which have been in use in the schools for many years past; and, seeing the useful life of the German boards is estimated at five years and the Canadian boards at 20 years, will he make representations to the London County Council to encourage Empire trade by reverting to the use of Canadian yellow-pine blackboards in all their schools?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I understand that a certain number of German blackboards have been purchased because they are lighter for the teacher to handle, but the purchase of materials for schools is primarily
a matter for the discretion of the local education authorities concerned. All local authorities have been circularised on more than one occasion, and urged to purchase British goods and materials wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so. My Noble Friend has no reason to think that the London County Council are not aware of the wishes of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in fact Canadian yellow pine is the lightest wood on the market, and that there is no laminated wood made to-day that is nearly so light as Canadian yellow pine?

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he feels that this is a sudden conversion to Protection, or with an eye on the London County Council election?

PRECIOUS METALS (DEALERS' REGISTRATION).

Mr. LEWIS: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the registration of, and the compulsory keeping of records by, dealers in gold and silver articles, with a view to increasing the difficulty of disposing of stolen property, as suggested in the reports of His Majesty's inspectors of constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1933?

Mr. HACKING: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Thursday last to my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley (Mr. Joel) and Lanark, North (Mr. Anstruther-Gray).

HAWKERS.

Dr. HOWITT: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the death of a woman caused or accelerated by the behaviour of a door-to-door hawker calling at her house; what supervision of licensed hawkers is exercised by the Metropolitan Police; and whether he will issue instructions to the effect that greater protection is to be given to householders in the Metropolitan Police District against molestation by unlicensed hawkers?

Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend has made inquiry into this case. As my
hon. Friend may be aware, the man referred to, who is a pedlar, was arrested by a plain-clothes officer as he was leaving the house. He was charged before the magistrates at Penge with using insulting words and behaviour, and was sentenced on Tuesday last to 21 days' imprisonment in default of paying a fine. The Metropolitan Police give careful attention to any complaints which are made by householders in regard to the behaviour of pedlars and others who call at their houses to sell goods, and my right hon. Friend is assured by the Commissioner that no additional instructions are necessary.

RODEO (WHITE CITY).

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any further statement to make regarding the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) calling his attention to the fact that it is proposed to hold at the White City, London, a world contest rodeo, and pointing out that in connection with this contest rodeo a large number of horses and steers will be employed, and requesting that, having regard to the fact that such exhibitions offend the public sense of decency, he will take the necessary steps to prevent this contest rodeo being held?

Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend has no power to prohibit the holding of a performance of this description. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, in the event of cruelty occurring in the course of the performance or of the training of the animals for the performance proceedings can be taken under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, but there is no power under these statutes to take any action in advance. I understand, however, that a large number of the persons whom it is proposed to employ for the purpose of this performance may be aliens, and the question whether they should be allowed to enter this country would, therefore, fall to be dealt with under the provisions of the Aliens Order. My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with the Minister of Labour on this aspect of the matter, and the conclusion has been reached that it would not be a proper exercise of the statutory powers under the Aliens Order to ex-
clude persons from this country merely because the object of their visit is to take part in a performance of this kind. If, however, any sufficient reason should arise during the presence of alien participants in the rodeo, my right hon. Friend would be free to require the promoters to remove the aliens either wholly or individually from the country, and he would not hesitate to take such action if in his opinion it should become necessary.

SHOPS BILL.

Mr. DENMAN: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what is the estimated number of young persons to whom the Shops Bill will apply?

Mr. HACKING: The estimated number of young persons to whom the provisions of the Shops Bill relating to hours of employment will apply, is approximately 400,000

TOY PISTOLS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of boys charged with using toy pistols which are dangerous to human life; and whether he proposes, in view of these cases, to expedite the passage through Parliament of the Bill controlling more drastically the sale of these weapons?

Mr. HACKING: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), the Second Reading of which has been set down for the 9th instant. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Secretary of State has appointed a Committee to consider the definition and classification of firearms, and to inquire and report whether in the interests of public safety any amendment of the law is required. The Committee has begun its inquiries, and my right hon. Friend thinks it would be desirable to await their recommendations before any far-reaching changes in the law are effected. I have no information that the cases referred to by my hon. Friend are numerous, but I should be glad to consider any information in his possession.

Mr. LEVY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Bill to which he refers
is going to be sent to a Committee upstairs for their consideration?

Mr. HACKING: I was referring to another Committee—a committee of inquiry. I know nothing about the Committee to which my hon. Friend's Bill may be sent.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury in view of their interest in the Income Tax payable, can supply a list of the countries failing to pay the full contractual interest at any time since 1st January, 1930, whether by arrangement or otherwise, on their national indebtedness in which British citizens may be interested; and, if not, will they take steps to register such defaults, or otherwise to prepare such a list as a protection to future lenders in this country and to assist the Treasury in intervening in cases of discrimination which may arise?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am arranging for circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT of a list of the foreign countries which, according to the information in my possession, have at any time since 1st January, 1930, whether by arrangement or otherwise, failed to pay the full contractual interest on governmental loans issued by them in the London market.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the list include those who have failed to carry out their contractual obligations with regard to sinking funds for the repayment of capital? The hon. Gentleman speaks of payment of interest, but will it include the repayment of instalments of capital?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is not what my right hon. Friend asked for. His question refers to "full contractual interest," and I have given him that information.
Following is the list:
Governments which have failed to pay at any time since 1st January, 1930, the full contractual interest, whether by arrangement or otherwise, on Governmental loans issued by them in the London market.

Brazil (Federal Government and States).


Bulgaria.


Chile.


China (except certain loans paid in full).


Colombia.


Costa Rica.


Ecuador.


Germany (States)—As regards Reich Loans, the External Loan, 1924, is paid in full and interest on 51½ per cent. Loan, 1930, is paid in sterling in full.


Greece.


Hungary.


Mexico.


Paraguay.


Peru.


Rumania.


Russia.


Salvador (current interest is being paid in full).


Uruguay (interest on 3½ per cent. Loan now paid in full).


Turkey (New Bonds issued in 1931 and debt service on New Bonds now paid in full).


Yugoslavia.


NOTE.—The above list comprises Governments only and excludes provinces and municipalities. Governments which have suspended Sinking Funds but have continued to pay the full contractual interest are not included in the list.

TRANSPORT (ROAD BRIDGES).

Mr. CLARRY: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport what measures it is proposed to take in respect of the restrictions on vehicles on certain bridges under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, Section 30, in order to mitigate hardship and avoid serious dislocation of both through traffic and the transport of road-rolling equipment?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): In deciding upon what date to bring this Section into operation, I shall not overlook the considerations to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and on certain points I am still in discussion with the bridge authorities. Meanwhile, I may perhaps draw his attention to the fact that, when the Section is brought into operation, a bridge authority must give 28 days' notice of their intention to restrict the use of a
bridge, and that a right of appeal to me is given to any person or body of persons aggrieved by a restriction and to any highway authority in whose area the bridge is situate.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it my hon. Friend's intention to see that alternative routes are available before these bridges are closed?

Mr. STANLEY: My primary consideration, of course, must be the question whether the bridges are safe for traffic.

Mr. CAPORN: Does the Minister contemplate that he will be in a position to deal with the appeals within the 28 days?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

CHANGSHA, HUNAN (BRITISH CONSUL).

Mr. NUNN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is intended to reappoint a resident Consul at Changsha, in view of the importance of maintaining British interests at that port, which is the provincial capital of Hunan?

Sir J. SIMON: I anticipate that His Majesty's Consulate at Changsha will be reopened in June, 1934.

BROADCASTING (OFFICIAL MESSAGES).

Captain A. EVANS (for Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS): 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if trade matters are included in the daily British official news service issued from Rugby; and whether he can give the recent occasions on which attention has been called to Welsh trade developments?

Sir J. SIMON: Trade and industrial developments of national importance are included in the British official wireless messages as they occur. I should be glad to show my hon. Friend the messages themselves in order to satisfy him that Welsh trade developments have not been neglected.

SEA-FISHING ACT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the nature of the reply he has returned to representations requesting an amend-
ment of the order under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, to permit the landing and sale by in-shore fishermen of sole, plaice, and dabs over eight inches in length?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have informed the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee that I am unable to amend the Order in the manner suggested by them. As I explained in the answer I gave to a similar question addressed to me on the 5th February by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst), the Act does not permit me to prescribe different minimum sizes in relation to the same description of fish. The object of the committee could therefore only be achieved by reduction in the general size limit for plaice, dabs and soles from nine inches to eight inches. As a limit of general application, eight inches would be virtually useless, since very few fish below this size would in any case be put upon the market.

HOUSING (OVERCROWDING, FULHAM).

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of persons shown by the last available figures to be living in the metropolitan borough of Fulham in an overcrowded condition of more than two persons per room, the number of separate families living in the borough, and the number of structurally separate dwellings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The last available figures are contained in the 1931 Census Report for the County of London (page xx and Tables 10 and 11), to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Mr. WILMOT: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the default of the London County Council in taking steps to remedy the very serious overcrowding in the borough of Fulham; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. More than 1,500 Fulham families have already been provided with housing accommodation by the London County Council. In addition 400 new dwellings have been provided by the borough council. But
overcrowding still remains a problem, and the question is at present receiving the attention of the Government. In the meantime the London County Council in common with other housing authorities are concentrating upon the more immediate task of slum clearance.

Mr. WILMOT: Over what period do those figures extend?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That would be since 1924.

Mr. WILMOT: Would the hon. Gentleman consider using the powers of compulsion that he has in cases of default, unless of course a change in the Government renders that unnecessary?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH, ARMY.

BROUGHTY FERRY CASTLE.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why it has been decided that Broughty Ferry Castle is to be no longer a flag station of the Scottish Command; and will he reconsider this decision, bearing in mind that this privilege has been enjoyed for nearly a hundred years?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The decision referred to is consequent upon the reorganisation of coast defence arrangements in Great Britain under which Broughty Ferry Castle is no longer a station for regular troops.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will visitors be able to see Broughty Ferry Castle, as has not been possible in the past?

Captain A. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with the Financial Secretary about that.

RECRUITS (EDUCATION).

Mr. PETHERICK: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if officers commanding depôts are authorised directly to approach county directors of education with a view to bringing to their notice cases in which recruits are found after enlistment to possess low educational attainments?

Captain A. HUDSON: A depôt commander desiring to make representations regarding the quality of recruits would refer the matter to higher military
authority. There is a Command Education Officer in each command who is encouraged to keep in close touch with local education authorities on all questions affecting the education of soldiers.

Mr. PETHERICK: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Secretary of State if he will issue definite instructions to officers commanding depôts asking them particularly to bring cases of defective education before the officers mentioned?

Captain A. HUDSON: Yes, Sir.

POLICE (DISCIPLINE AND PROMOTION).

Captain A. EVANS (for Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS): 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any action, in view of the recommendations of his inspectorate of constabulary, in favour of extending to the chief constables of cities and boroughs in England and Wales the necessary powers, as in Scotland, relating to discipline and promotion?

Mr. HACKING: Legislation would be needed to alter the present position, and I am not in a position to say more than that the suggestion referred to is receiving my right hon. Friend's attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.

"to provide further protection to animals and for the prevention of unnecessary suffering thereto," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. John Lockwood, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Colonel Baldwin-Webb, and Sir Wilfrid Sugden; to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933.

CLASS I.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

3.11 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It now appears probable that the Judicial Fees payable to the Privy Council Office will produce only £4,300, instead of £5,000, making a shortage of £700 for which we are asking. Receipts from fees, of course, cannot be gauged accurately in advance as there is always some risk of failure to realise the estimate. I trust that the Committee will consider that sufficient explanation of why there has been the shortage of £700.

Question put, and agreed to.

CHARITY COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the original Estimate for 1933 it was estimated, on the basis of the figures then available, that the fees for the recording of Deeds under the Settled Land Act, 1925, would produce £3,400. It is now expected that they will not exceed £2,800 and it is, accordingly, necessary to ask for this Supplementary Estimate. The same observations that I made on the previous Estimate apply here and I trust the Committee will think that a sufficient explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

PRIVY SEAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £642, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Supplementary Estimate is due to the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Eden) as Lord Privy Seal. That change in the holder of the office of Lord Privy Seal would not normally require a Supplementary Estimate but the Leader of the House, who was my hon. Friend's predecessor in this office, drew no salary as Lord Privy Seal, which appointment he held concurrently with his appointment as Lord President of the Council. Hence no estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's office was included in the original Estimates for 1933. The salary of the Lord Privy Seal has of recent years been £5,000 or £2,000 per annum, according to the duties performed. The salary of my hon. Friend will be £2,000 a year less the 15 per cent. deduction which Ministers drawing that salary suffer under the economy cuts.
The Disarmament Conference and other specialised activities of the League of Nations have required the almost constant attendance of a Minister. In fact, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has spent no less than 23½ weeks on duty abroad during the course of the last two years. It is obviously inconvenient that any particular phase of the international work connected with the office of Foreign Secretary should necessitate such frequent and prolonged absences on his part. The most satisfactory course to pursue in these circumstances seemed at first to be to arrange for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to assist the Secretary of State by taking his place at Geneva from time to time. This has often involved negotiations with the foreign Ministers of other countries, and it has been felt desirable that our representative should have full ministerial status. It was accordingly decided to confer upon my hon. Friend, whom perhaps the Committee will permit me to say was so eminently suited, the appointment of Lord Privy Seal, with the intention that he should continue to assist the Foreign Secretary, particularly so far as the representation of His Majesty's Government at Geneva was concerned.
As Lord Privy Seal, however, he could not continue to discharge all the functions of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and it became necessary to appoint someone else in his place. This was all the more necessary as both the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal had, on occasion, to be absent at the same time. In response to views widely expressed, it was decided that the new Under-Secretary who was to be appointed to succeed my hon. Friend should have a seat in another place in order that foreign policy might authoritatively be expounded there by a representative of the Foreign Office. In the view of His Majesty's Government, the appointment of my hon. Friend as Lord Privy Seal, and of my Noble Friend Lord Stanhope as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State provided the most convenient arrangement. Therefore, it devolves upon me to ask the Committee to approve this Estimate to meet the salary of my hon. Friend for the remainder of the year, together with the appropriate secretarial assistance.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting account of this additional expenditure. The present holder of the office of Lord Privy Seal is deservedly popular with all Members of the House of Commons and none of us would grudge him an adequate salary, but I am bound to say that the explanation of this change has struck me as a little insufficient. We had some two years in which the Foreign Secretary, we were told, was constantly overseas at Geneva at Disarmament Conferences, at the League of Nations and everything else, and he seems to have managed to carry on for a very long time before it was found necessary to supplement his efforts. We are now told that the present Lord Privy Seal has been appointed to do functions which should not be performed by an Under-Secretary but should be done by someone with full ministerial status. If that is so, I cannot understand why the present holder of the office has not become a member of the Cabinet. After all, that is the great dividing line between Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers. The authoritative status is that derived from taking part in decisions of policy, and we have here a departure from all precedents in the Lord
Privy Seal not being a member of the Cabinet. I think that there are probably other reasons as to why we are to have this additional expenditure. It is natural in a coalition Government that there should be a great deal of criticism of holders of office, and you get demands from this section or that section for changes. It seems to me that the policy of this Government is to keep on with the old team, but to add someone else.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that this question arises upon this Vote. It should arise, of course, on the Vote for the salary of the Prime Minister.

Mr. ATTLEE: With great respect, Captain Bourne, we have here an additional Minister appointed, and the question which arises naturally is, why we require an additional salary for an additional Minister?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the case of an additional office, but of an additional salary, and we are limited strictly on this Vote to the necessity of paying for it.

Mr. ATTLEE: The two offices of Lord President of the Council and Lord Privy Seal were held by one individual. They have now been separated, and, therefore, we have another individual brought in. That necessitates an additional salary. The reason given as to why an additional person is required is extra work. The point I am making is that, if it is extra work, a long time has been allowed to elapse before the extra appointment, and, with great respect, I submit that the Committee are entitled to consider the possible reason for an additional Minister, and whether the practice of appointing additional Ministers is going any further. Hitherto we had two representatives of the Foreign Office, and holders of more or less sinecure offices have sometimes been given work. We have rumours that there may be another new Minister appointed soon to act with one of the other Ministers against whom criticism has been made.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into the question of the possibility of the appointment of new Ministers on this Vote. The Vote is solely a question of whether the present holder of the office of Lord Privy Seal should or should not receive a salary,
and whether he should or should not be provided with a certain staff. The general question of Ministers must arise on the Vote for the Prime Minister's salary.

Mr. ATTLEE: I submit that we have a Government who are an economy Government, and we have here a step taken in which an additional Minister and an additional salary are brought in, and I am merely criticising it as a matter of tendency. We have to vote on this question. We all agree that the present holder of the office of Lord Privy Seal should be paid, but we are entitled to consider how far it is an expression of a tendency in which we are to have large additions made to the Ministry. I am criticising the reason given by the Financial Secretary of the need for this extra salary, and whether in fact it is caused by increased work at the Foreign Office or by dissensions in the Government.
I hope that I shall be able to get a full reply upon the matter. We should like to hear something more of the exact work which the Lord Privy Seal has to do, and of the demarcation between the work of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal; how far the Lord Privy Seal is really only a glorified Under-Secretary, and how far he is the representative abroad directly of the Cabinet. It is a very unusual thing. I think that all Members of the Committee will agree that the holder of a great office of State, the Lord Privy Seal, should be entrusted with the duty of taking part with his Cabinet colleagues in decisions of policy. We have it from the Financial Secretary that the purpose of making him Lord Privy Seal was to give him special weight. If, as a matter of fact, he is only an Under-Secretary he can have no more weight as Lord Privy Seal than as Under-Secretary, but if his powers and responsibilities are greater than those of an Under-Secretary then we want to know exactly what they are.

3.30 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: If the House approve of this Vote for the Lord Privy Seal's salary, which I am sure none of us grudge in any way, can we have an assurance that it will not be taken as showing the general approval of the House of Ministers spending so much of their time abroad? There is a very strong feeling in the country that more might have been
done if Ministers had spent less time abroad and had attended more to their offices at home. Can we be informed whether it is the opinion of the Government that recent events have shown that practical benefit has been obtained by Ministers spending so much of their time abroad?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now debating the question of Foreign Policy and not the salary of the Lord Privy Seal.

Sir W. DAVISON: Before we vote this salary of £2,000, I think the House ought to have an assurance from the Government that it will not be taken as approval by the House of an additional salary being paid because Ministers spend so much of their time abroad. I have said all that I desired to say on the matter.

3.32 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is there to be no reply to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee)? We are asked to approve the payment of a salary of £2,000 and we are entitled to know what the work of the Lord Privy Seal is to be. He is not going to get a salary simply for holding the office. He has been specially appointed to do special work and the House and the country are entitled to know what that special work is. No one questions the capabilities of the hon. Member or the great services which he has already rendered to the Foreign Secretary and the Government, but in the special circumstances of his appointment we ought to know what his special work is to be. We question the right of the Government to vote this small sum of money and unless we get a satisfactory answer we shall raise the propriety of it in the country and shall challenge the right to vote money without the consent and knowledge of the House. Seeing that there is a National Government we realise that no one could do the work better than the Lord Privy Seal, but we want to know what is the division of functions between the Lord Privy Seal and the right hon. Gentleman who, we assume, will still be in charge of foreign policy.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I take it that the Lord Privy Seal has been appointed for a special purpose. He has been on the
Continent to explain our memorandum in regard to disarmament and to see if certain Governments would accept it. When he has completed that work will his term of office end, or are the Cabinet appointing a "drawer"? That is a term which we use in pit language. When an additional man is required we call him a "drawer." Is it the intention of the Government when any other special piece of work has to be done to appoint a drawer to help them out of the difficulty? Is the appointment for a period only? When the Lord Privy Seal has succeeded in getting the matter settled favourably, or if it is not settled at all, will his term of office expire, or is it to be continued indefinitely until there is a rearrangement of the Cabinet and he can be found a position in the Cabinet?

3.35 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I am sure that everybody in the House shares the sentiment that has been expressed by two hon. Members opposite, that there could not be any better selection for the work which calls to be done than the selection which has been made of my hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. The question is raised why there should be an additional Minister concerned with the subject of foreign affairs. On that, perhaps I may be allowed, as the responsible head of the office, to say a few words. The Committee will remember that there is a long tradition that there should be three Ministers associated with the War Office and three Ministers associated with the Admiralty. With certain exceptions there have only been two Ministers associated with the work of foreign affairs. I think the Committee will agree with me, if they take a reasonable view of present day circumstances and policies, that, if it is right to have three Ministers associated with the War Office and three associated with the Admiralty, it is not very unreasonable to take the view, which the Government take, that the work of the Foreign Office just now is so multifarious and complex that it does call for this amount of extra help.
The particular functions which the Lord Privy Seal exercises were stated quite plainly from this Box by the Prime
Minister when the appointment was notified. The Prime Minister then said:
My hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will continue to assist my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, particularly so far as concerns representation of His Majesty's Government at Geneva."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1934; col. 534, Vol. 285.]
That is a completely clear and definite statement. This is not the constitution of a separate department of the Government. It is the increase of one Minister in the department of foreign affairs. While the head of the Foreign Office is responsible for all that goes on there, I think it is plain that the work which the Lord Privy Seal is specially going to undertake is work which it is appropriate to separate and put more particularly in his charge. He acts under the general authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and what has happened, as for example quite recently, is that it has been possible for the Foreign Secretary to stay in this country, which I think is usually the right place for the Foreign Secretary to be, and at the same time for a very authoritative representation to be made of this country abroad, as in the Lord Privy Seal's recent visit to the Continent or in the discussion of special international affairs at Geneva.
In these circumstances, it is not necessary to attempt to draw a precise boundary. I might point out that in a previous Government, I think Lord Parmoor had special responsibility in connection with Geneva, while the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. A. Henderson) remained in undivided authority at the Foreign Office. As to the question of Cabinet membership, that is a matter entirely for the Prime Minister. Sometimes particular people are members of the Cabinet and sometimes they are not, for example the Postmaster-General has sometimes not been a member of the Cabinet and sometimes is, as at present.

3.39 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The Foreign Secretary is a past master in argument, but I think his argument about there being three Ministers at the Admiralty and the War Office, and the analogy he sought to make in regard to the Foreign Office, was rather thin. The difficulty has come about through the meetings at Geneva
and, as some of us think, the too numerous conferences held on the continent. We have not been told why it is necessary to drag the Lord Privy Seal away from the duties of his office and despatch him on periodical tours as the representative of the Government in connection with the administration of another office? Another point occurs to me. I may be wrong but it seems to me that the visits of foreign statesmen to Geneva are not now so frequent and that therefore the need for a constant representative of this country at Geneva of great authority has declined. It seems to me an inopportune moment to appoint the Lord Privy Seal to represent this country abroad. In fact, the salary which we are asked to vote to-day is only another subscription, in addition to the very large sum already subscribed by this country, to the League of Nations at Geneva, and the explanation given by the Foreign Secretary and also by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not put the matter in any other guise. I should like to know also whether this procedure is to be taken as a precedent. The Committee will be well advised to embark on it with great caution. During the War we had a great epidemic of new ministries being set up to do particular jobs. Is this a reversal to that discredited policy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Member that this is not a case of setting up a new ministry; the office of Lord Privy Seal has been in existence for a long time. This is merely a question as to whether the present occupant should take his salary or not.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we not entitled to discuss the work which the Lord Privy Seal has to do in connection with his appointment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly obvious that the Committee can discuss the reasons why the Lord Privy Seal requires a salary when the late Lord Privy Seal did not, but it is not in order to discuss whether there should or should not be a new Ministry.

Colonel GRETTON: You have said, Captain Bourne, in different words what I desire to say. It is a little difficult to deal with this subject when the Government throw a cloak over their proceed-
ings and thus whet our curiosity. I think we ought to have a further explanation, because although a large sum is not involved matters of importance are involved in these Ministerial arrangements.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III.

LAND REGISTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Supplementary Estimate, like the original Estimate, is a token Estimate only. Owing to an unexpected increase in the work during the year the gross expenditure provided for in the original Estimate has proved insufficient. The increase will be more than covered by an increase in estimated receipts from fees during the year. The Supplementary Estimate sets out the main heads on which the additional provision is required, and, as I have already stated, this is more than covered by an anticipated increase in receipts from fees and stamps. In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will grant this token Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury and, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by the Civil Service Committee.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the Committee is aware the Treasury, under Statute, is compelled to pay certain gratuities and allowances on the retirement or death of civil servants. We have no option in the matter; we operate under the compulsion of the Statute. Unestablished officers who are retired through age or infirmity after 15 years' service, or on the abolition of the office after seven
years' service, are entitled to compassionate gratuities at the rate of a week's pay for each year of service. The death of a Colonial Governor at an early age has caused part of this Supplementary Estimate to be placed before the Committee. Gratuities are payable to established women in the Civil Service on marriage at certain specified rates; we have no option in the matter. The Committee will, therefore, see that this is an Estimate which could not have been foreseen.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £272,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers.

3.48 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): This expenditure comes under three heads. The first is connected with the Bechuanaland Protectorate. In June we asked for £140,000 grant-in-aid for the territory, and we are now asking for an additional sum of £37,000, bringing the total up to £177,000. When I presented the Estimate in June I described briefly the conditions which made it necessary. The territory has not only suffered from the world economic depression, but on the top of that it has suffered very severely during last year from the drought, and in addition there has been a severe outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among the cattle of Bechuanaland. The last named calamity resulted in an embargo being put on exports from Bechuanaland, and, as a consequence, not only has the revenue of the territory fallen by one-half, but the administration has had to go to considerable extra expenditure in combating the disease and also in alleviating the distress among native and European inhabitants. I am very glad to say that so far as those matters are concerned there has been a considerable improvement in the terri-
tory in the last 12 months. Nevertheless we are asking for an extra £37,000. Something like £17,000 of that is due to the deficit on the Budget over and above the grant-in-aid already given to the territory. The greater part of that £17,000 is on account of additional expenditure in the alleviation of distress amongst the inhabitants.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is no part of this sum due to Admiral Evans's expedition with his marines?

Mr. MacDONALD: Part of the sum is due to that, and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had waited I would have come to that point. As I said, the greater part of the £17,000 is on account of additional expenditure connected with the alleviation of distress amongst the inhabitants resulting from the drought and embargo put on exports. A certain amount of the £17,000 is on account of the expedition to which reference has been made. The sum, as far as we can see at present, will amount to something less than £4,000. This is being borne on the Vote this afternoon. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that we are not asking the natives of the territory to bear any of that expense. In addition to that sum of £17,000 we are asking for another £20,000 in order to provide the administration with fixed working capital. Normally that would be supplied out of surplus assets, but as those do not exist in the territory we think it desirable to provide the money out of a grant-in-aid rather than go in for the expense involved in a permanent overdraft at the bank, for which we have to pay a comparatively high rate of interest. That disposes of the head concerning Bechuanaland.
Then there is the question of salaries in connection with Newfoundland. The Committee will remember the discussion that we had on Newfoundland a few months ago. Three of the Commissioners were to have their salaries borne direct out of United Kingdom funds. The new form of government was formally establisted in the island on 16th February, and this sum of £1,000 is required to pay the salaries of those individuals during the remainder of this financial year. Then there is a third head in the Estimates "Newfoundland, Grant-in-Aid." The Committee will remember that when we had the discussion on Newfoundland re-
cently it was made clear that further Supplementary Estimates would be required before the end of the year in order to meet a deficiency in the current financial year, including a provision for the payment of interest due on the public debt on 1st January of this year, and the greater part of this sum of £234,000 is in order to meet that situation and make up the payment of the interest on the public debt.
I think the Committee will be interested in learning the result of the conversion offer which was made at that time. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission was that the burden of the public debt should be lightened as quickly as possible, and in order to achieve that a conversion offer was made. Although the complete results will not be known for some time, I am able to state that the response has been extremely satisfactory. The old non-trustee stock which could be exchanged were of a total value in sterling of £15,286,000. The guaranteed stock set up in respect of exchange of these securities is £14,964,000. So that approximately 98 per cent. has already been exchanged. The trustee securities came under a separate arrangement. About 25 per cent. of those have also been converted. The net result of that operation is a saving during the six months of just about £150,000. The greater part of this £234,000 under this sub-head is in order to meet the deficiency and to allow those payments of interest to be made.
In addition we are asking for a sum of £40,000 in connection with certain work of reconstruction or rehabilitation in the Island which the Royal Commission said was of great urgency. If hon. Members who have the Report of the Royal Commission with them will look at page 130, they will see that from paragraph 364 onwards the Commissioners made certain recommendations for immediate action to resuscitate the deep-sea fishery and the fall fisheries in Newfoundland. The object which they set themselves was to increase the fishing season by some four months per annum, and they made certain recommendations for early expenditure in order to carry out that development. They calculated that something like £40,000 would be required for the purpose. We are including the sum of £40,000 in this Supplementary
Estimate so that development along those lines can be undertaken by the new Government, and thus the work of reconstruction and revival in Newfoundland will be put into being straight away.

Mr. PETHERICK: Have the new Commissioners appointed to Newfoundland already started their duties?

Mr. MacDONALD: As I stated, the new Government was installed on 16th February. The new Commissioners are there and have started their duties.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I had intended to ask first of all what the Supplementary Estimate for the Bechuanaland Protectorate was for, and what was meant by "cost of administration." All that is mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate is abnormal conditions due to drought and foot-and-mouth disease. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) drew from the Under-Secretary of State something that is not mentioned in any way, the expedition in this Protectorate, about which I think we ought to hear something more. What are the intentions? I will leave that subject to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The statement we have here is not sufficiently explanatory, and we ought to be told more on a matter which might be a subject of controversy.
With regard to Newfoundland, we have never been told yet in this House who are the Special Commissioners who have been appointed and what are their qualifications for this particular work. Nor have we any idea how long they are likely to be engaged on this work. We have just learned that they have arrived in Newfoundland and that a week or two ago they started on their work. I hope that the Commissioners will bear in mind many of the points and recommendations of the Royal Commission that was presided over by Lord Amulree. The Under-Secretary of State has mentioned one or two things that are in the Royal Commission's Report. May I mention one or two other things in the report? Newfoundland, it was said, had been the victim of a corrupt and vicious political system for many years past, and
the report contained an overwhelming condemnation of private enterprise, which had brought the Colony to its present state of bankruptcy, although the Colony was blessed by nature to withstand the world economic depression better than most places.
I want these things to be remembered by the Special Commission that has gone out to Newfoundland, because democracy has gone from the Colony and the Government is financed by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. We have already advanced £550,000, and we ought to be told what is the estimate of the total cost to be undertaken by the United Kingdom taxpayers. How many millions is it likely to take to complete the business? The people in Newfoundland are hard-working, poor and honourable. We know that the money is not provided for them. It has been provided for the bondholders, and there is no guarantee as to what is to be the result of the Special Commission. I hope that the new Government in Newfoundland will not lose sight of many of the recommendations in the Royal Commission's Report. After all, it is very likely that when the Special Commission reports, it may report to a very different Parliament from the one as now constituted. It may be, and it is very likely, that if there should be a General Election before the Special Commission has finished its work, there will be a much more critical House on this matter than there has been with regard to all this money having to be found by the British taxpayers for the resuscitation of the Colony.
We have no particular objection to helping the people of Newfoundland. Our objections have been to the methods taken by the Government, and to the people who are to benefit by their action. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will see that an economic system which has ruined Newfoundland will not be reestablished. After all the viciousness and the exploitation that have gone on, it is to be hoped that the Special Commission will bear in mind the strong points in the Report of the Royal Commission, and that they will set up a new system arising out of that report which will not simply be to the advantage of those who have invested their money in
the Colony, but to the benefit of the long-suffering inhabitants of the Colony.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I think that we are entitled to much more information than has been given to us by the hon. Gentleman opposite. First of all, in regard to what is described as a Grant-in-Aid, the hon. Gentleman did not take the Committee into his confidence, and I think he missed a great opportunity of justifying his office and the position it occupies over the people of Bechuanaland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this Vote is for an additional sum of £37,000. The main policy has already been decided, and cannot now be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. GRENFELL: We have had no statement with regard to part of this expenditure. There was an occasion, which came to our notice during the past year, when Admiral Evans, who, I believe, is the Admiral in charge of the naval forces in South Africa, made a demonstration which drew the attention of the whole world, and rather disturbed a good many people in this country because of the display of force—unnecessary force, we believe—on that occasion, and now we find that that unnecessary display, accompanied by guns, the rattle of drums and the presence of soldiers, is to be at the expense of the Treasury to the extent of not less than £4,000. Not a word is said about that in the Statement, and we would like to know why, if a question had not been put, it should have been glossed over, and allowed to pass. I would like to know, if I am allowed to ask the questions under the Rules of Order, why the £4,000 was spent; whether any authority was given for the expedition by Admiral Evans in Bechuanaland; whether he was authorised to go under the conditions and with the accompaniment of the force which was displayed on that occasion; and whether it was necessary to spend £4,000 of public money of this country in making that demonstration of force against a people unarmed, friendly, and generally content with their relations with us. Further, there is an additional provision in the Estimate for a Grant-in-Aid of expenses of administration on account of abnormal conditions due to
drought and foot-and-mouth disease. I am sure it would be a lesson of profit to the Committee if it were told exactly how this abnormal expenditure became necessary last year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that is exactly a question to which I could not allow the Minister to reply. So far as the expedition under Admiral Evans is concerned, the Minister has stated that that is included in the £17,000, and, of course, it is open to the Committee to discuss that point; but, on the general question and supplementary questions relating to the Navy the hon. Member must not make comments on this Vote.

Mr. GRENFELL: It was the abnormal measures and abnormal expenditure to which I referred. That is what the Grant-in-Aid is designed to meet, and I thought there might be some explanation as to the grant.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I could not have made myself very clear. The question that there are abnormal conditions necessitating a Grant-in-Aid was dealt with on the main Estimate of £140,000. The only question that arises now is whether the £17,000 is required. We cannot go into the question of the original policy.

Mr. GRENFELL: I was not going into the original policy, but was only asking for a statement as to the kind of measures adopted. If, however, that is out of order, I do not want to trespass any further, but will go back to the question of the expenses of Admiral Evans. I would ask what the £4,000 covers, and where the expense begins. Does it begin in Bechuanaland, or outside? Does it begin when Admiral Evans conceived the enterprise, or when he started the march with all the panoply of war, which was so discreditable a feature of the expedition; who authorised it; whether, in the absence of authorisation, Admiral Evans took upon himself the responsibility; and, if so, in the event of his being personally responsible, whether he could not be called upon to pay the expense himself? I think that the Committee is entitled to know very much more of this adventure. Admiral Evans must have enjoyed himself, but it is very unfair that we should pay for the pleasure of a demonstration of that kind to the extent of £4,000.

4.10 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I should like to criticise, with the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), somewhat the manner in which this Estimate has been presented. Like other hon. Members, on reading the Estimate I never imagined that it contained the sum of £4,000 on account of the expedition to Bechuanaland. The original Estimate was to deal with the bad conditions in Bechuanaland owing to drought and cattle disease, but why in such a Supplementary Estimate as we have now before us there should be hidden away this £4,000 for the Admiral's expedition, I fail to see. I do not think it is fair to the Committee that an Estimate should be presented in this way. The hon. Member has assured the Committee that this charge will be in no wise placed upon the people of Bechuanaland. If that be the case, I venture to ask why it is included in a Grant-in-Aid to Bechuanaland? I hope that the hon. Member when he replies, will give us some reason why the Estimate has been presented in this way, and some further assurance that the £4,000 will eventually find its way into the right pigeon-hole, it being now, I believe, in the wrong one.

4.12 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I, too, want to enter a protest against this extremely novel and bad habit of the Dominions Office. I cannot believe that this was originally drafted by the Office but imagine that it has been altered subsequently by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It is inconceivable, on the wording, that it should have been intended to cover the £4,000 for Admiral Evans's expedition. Nobody could have suspected that it was included. I thought it best to ask the question to make certain, believing that I should merely be told that it was not there. Everybody reading the Supplementary Estimate could have had no conception that the taxpayers of this country were to be asked to pay for that wild-cat expedition of Admiral Evans. There are not merely two alternative ways to pay for that sort of advertisement—through the taxpayers of this country, or the unfortunate natives of Bechuanaland. There is a third alternative, namely, that it should be surcharged on Admiral Evans's salary. The story that is going about the
Navy as to whether he was authorised to take that expedition to Bechuanaland.
The first question I want to ask is, whether the Department were in favour of the drafting of the Supplementary Estimate; and, in the second place, whether Admiral Evans was authorised in any way whatever to carry out the expedition? Was it known to the Dominions Office before he started that he was going to take that force of machine guns against a perfectly friendly native tribe? Let the Committee remember what really happened. It was while the House was not in Session. Khama's second son ordered the flogging of a white man in Bechuanaland because he was living on the immoral earnings of black women, after the Chief had done everything by writing to the resident magistrate to get the man removed. Immediately it got into the South African Press there was all the trouble that usually arises when any white man occupies an inferior position in relation to a black. Admiral Evans, in the absence of the High Commissioner, immediately went up with a number of marines and machine guns, disregarding the fact that there was no opposition whatever on the part of the natives. The expedition was so ridiculous that it was ridiculed even in the South African Press, where they are only too anxious to support any violent action by white against black. No defence of the expedition has been put forward anywhere. The native chief was dethroned, but, immediately, upon representations by Dominions Office, he was re-established in his position.
There was no justification for and no good results from the action of Admiral Evans, and if it was not authorised from the Dominions Office or from this country I maintain that the cost ought not to be a charge either on the British taxpayer or on the natives of Bechuanaland, but should be surcharged on the salary of the man who made himself responsible for it. Unfortunately, unless you do sometimes take drastic action against your servants all over the world, they will take upon themselves responsibility for carrying out policies which are sheer advertisement. Nothing has been or can be said for this expedition, and I would like to know whether there was any semblance of authorisation from this country for the action of Admiral
Evans, and whether it will be possible to get back this money by a surcharge upon his salary or upon Navy funds.
Passing from that, I turn to Newfoundland. The Commissioners I am glad to see have taken up their work there. I gather that they are to be paid £2,000 a year each, that is £1,200 salary with 4,000 dollars allowance. I think the salary is a trifle high and that you could have got the same people for less, but what I am particularly interested to know is, what are they going to do, now that they are on the job, about the recommendations of the committee which reported on Newfoundland and its conditions? In the first place, what are they going to do to put an end to the graft, the almost glorified bribery and corruption which was going on in that Dominion? It is not enough to put three English Commissioners into the country. Something ought to be done by way of improving both the status and the morality of the civil service in that island. Are we simply sending out there a certain number of Englishmen with British traditions as to the conduct of public business, or are we going to leaven the existing civil service in the Newfoundland with a better element so that we may hope to put an end to the extremely unsavoury state of affairs which existed before we took over there? Secondly, when the Commissioners start on their work in Newfoundland will they deal with the question of the taxation of undeveloped land in Newfoundland?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the functions of the Newfoundland Government authorised by the recent Act of Parliament do not come up for discussion on this Vote at all. I think the discussion must be limited to those Commissioners for whose payment this House is responsible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was speaking on the question of the Commissioners' salaries. If we pay men a big salary we have a right to expect good work from them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for intervening again, but I think the question which he was raising was a question relating to the Newfoundland Government as a whole. I must point out to him that half the Members of that Gov-
ernment are not paid by this House at all and I do not think that he can possibly criticise that Government as a whole on this Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is a very serious statement, Captain Bourne, and I do not think we can allow it to pass unargued. Surely now that we have responsibility for Newfoundland, now that we have to make the Newfoundland budget balance, now that we have the nomination and dismissal not only of the three Commissioners here mentioned but of all the Commissioners, including the Newfoundlanders, we are entitled to deal with these questions here. I submit that so long as the powers I have described rest with the House of Commons and the Dominions Office we have a right to discuss these matters here. In fact, it is our duty to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be right in that general statement but I think that as regards the commissioners who are not paid by this House the discussion could only arise on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State. It is he who is responsible for nominating them. The difficulty that I am in on this Vote is that we have here a Government, part of which is being paid for by this House and part by Newfoundland, and it seems to me that the occasion on which to criticise the actions of that Government as a whole would be the discussion of the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: This is a very important point of Order. This Supplementary Estimate includes expenditure by the Government of Newfoundland of £40,000 for reconstruction in connection with various matters mentioned in the report and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Is it not cempetent to discuss the question of how money voted to the Government of Newfoundland should best be spent and what is the most economical and best way of dealing with our liability to carry on, in that respect, the government of Newfoundland?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that on this Supplementary Estimate I am in considerable difficulty. There was an original grant of £400,000 made to Newfoundland. There is a subsequent grant
of £234,000 which is now before the Committee. In normal circumstances I should not regard that as a new service and therefore the question of policy would not be open for discussion at all. But I cannot forget that in this case the situation has been altered to some extent by the Act recently passed by Parliament. All I am laying down at the moment is that where action is taken by the Newfoundland Government as a whole I think we ought to discuss it on the main Estimate, on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State, because obviously he is the only person who can bear any responsibility for those of the commissioners who are not paid by this House. My difficulty is to draw the line between that part of the Newfoundland Government for whose payment we are directly responsible and that part of it for whose payment we have no responsibility at all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I put this consideration to you, Captain Bourne? Here is a sum of £40,000 which is being voted for an entirely new service, for something what has never been contemplated in any Estimate before. That service is concerned with the reconstruction of certain industries in Newfoundland under the authority of the Newfoundland Government. Is it not competent for this Committee now to discuss how the money so voted can best be expended and what attitude it is desirable for our commissioners—who are paid by this House—to take up as regards the influence which they can bring to bear on the expenditure of that money?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I have said in an earlier ruling that I realise that this Estimate, in this particular form, raises an entirely different point and that, as far as the £40,000 is concerned, it must obviously be regarded as a new service and is open to discussion as such. But it seemed to me that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was really going into a wider question of policy altogether, as to what the Newfoundland Government might or might not do beyond the limits of the £40,000. I think that a question of that sort should be raised on the main Estimate on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State because he is the only person who could be held to be responsible for the commissioners who are not paid by this House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it is quite clear that on the question of voting this sum of £40,000 we are entitled to raise this point—that certain preliminary considerations must be taken into account by the Commissioners, when it is a matter of developing the industries of Newfoundland. We are all willing that money should be spent on such a purpose, even though it comes out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, but what we want to know is: Are the Government satisfied that this preliminary expenditure of £40,000 on the development of the deep-sea fisheries, is the most economical and is likely to be the most reproductive way of investing our money? These problems are strange even to us on this side of the Committee; I fear they are equally strange to the Dominions Office, and in the circumstances it might be possible, with a too generous spirit on the part of the new Government in Newfoundland, to rush us into an expenditure of £40,000 on some purpose, without being certain that that was a wise or reproductive expenditure.
The spirit of giving doles has to stop in Newfoundland. The subsidising of industries which do not pay has to stop in Newfoundland. If we are to make a success of that country, we shall have to find out the industries which ought to pay and develop them. The first thing is to get the land into the possession of the Government so that the development of Newfoundland will be the development of our own property and not the development of other people's property. I hope we shall not see there, what we have seen in the development of other territories, an enormous expenditure of public money the benefit from which does not accrue either to the taxpayers here or to the people of the country concerned, but to the benefit of the London Stock Exchange and of speculators in land who may see their derelict properties develop overnight into valuable states which can be floated on the market. It is never too early to look into and stop development on those lines, and it is essential, if we are to make a success of Newfoundland, that we should get in on the ground floor ourselves and have the Government holding the land and the minerals from which in the future dividends and returns are to be expected.
This is not a case of taking over a Colony without a debt which we can
develop without great responsibility to the taxpayers. In Newfoundland we are taking over a Colony with a gigantic debt, and it is our duty to the people of this country to see that any capital sums which we spend there are invested reproductively, so that people here may recover at least the interest on the money which they are going to put into the Colony, so that the taxpayers here may not be milked as the taxpayers there have been for the benefit of vested interests and the lucky individuals who usually get a "rake-off" during these processes of development. It is admitted that Newfoundland is an extraordinarily difficult proposition for any Department to tackle, and I should be most loath to say anything which would make their task more difficult, but I believe the hon. Member and the Department are at one with me in thinking it necessary to get into that country some of our own young men of the Colonial Office type, to set the tone and to raise the level of the administration, and that it is essential to get back the land of that country for the public, as a necessary preliminary to any successful development of the latent wealth of the Colony.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: With regard to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, I should like to ask whether there were any terms of reference or instructions given to our three Commissioners, for whose salaries the Vote is now being considered, in regard to their action when they should arrive there, in conjunction with the Newfoundland Commissioners. It is an important thing for the people of this country and the Members of this Committee to know just what action is going to be taken and what instructions, if any, have been given. Our commissioners represent three out of six, so that they have a 50–50 voice in determining the policy that is to be conducted in Newfoundland.
The other point that I would like to put is a more important one. I am not sure what is included under the item K2, £234,000, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State said that included in it would be interest due to the bondholders, which was recently agreed to in this House. I would like to know whether any grants or any sums are included in this Estimate
to relieve the immediate distress of the fishermen themselves. After all, the thing that hon. Members were most interested in, when we were discussing the Resolution that we were asked to pass some time ago, was the fact that Newfoundland was in such a state of bankruptcy that not only were the Government officials suffering, but there was terrible distress among the poor fishermen and others in that Colony. There is nothing in the Vote that I can see which shows that any immediate relief has been given to them, and I should like to know whether they are still in that condition of dire distress, if any of the amount voted has been included for that purpose, how such amount, if any, has been distributed, by whom, what is the limit of it, and how long it is likely to be needed.
With regard to the interest to the bondholders, I was interested to learn from the hon. Gentleman that a very considerable saving—he got almost enthusiastic about it—of £150,000 had been made in, I presume, reducing the interest or issuing a new form of bond. I presume that the old bond was called in and a new form issued, or perhaps the same bond was allowed to remain at a reduced rate of interest. The hon. Gentleman rather seemed to imply that the bondholders were acting so generously, by agreeing, presumably, to a reduced rate of interest, that we were actually able to save £150,000. I think the bondholders would take another point of view. I think they would consider that they had had a security which was worth nothing at all, and that this House came to their rescue, gave them a security, to which they were not entitled, at the expense of the British taxpayers generally, and said to them, "We will let you off very lightly, and if you are prepared to make some small offer to show the British taxpayer that we are getting at least a little bit back from you, it will be squared up on that line."
When the hon. Gentleman comes here and says they were so generous that they actually accepted new conditions under which we were able to make a profit of £150,000, I should think he knows, as I certainly know, that he is talking sheer nonsense. They gave us nothing at all. Everything they have got now is of value. They have a security that they never could have had if it had not been for the action of this House, and if they acted
in anything like a generous spirit, it would not be a matter of £150,000 saved, but at least 50 per cent. of the entire amount that is involved. I think we could reasonably ask for that amount and then consider ourselves generous, because the British taxpayers are giving them the only security that they have got. The Commissioners' report said that the conditions out there were hopeless, that political corruption was on every hand, that land was being given away by people who had no right to give it away, that generally speaking corruption was so bad that nobody appeared in the Government service or in high office who was not in some form or other corrupt. That question has been settled by a Vote of this House, I am sorry to say, but I am sure that we are all concerned about the actual condition of the people who suffered as a consequence of that corruption, namely, the poorest section of the people in Newfoundland, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us what has been done to relieve that terrible distress, and whether it can be truthfully said that the terrible poverty about which we were told a few weeks ago has in fact been relieved.

4.39 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I would like to ask a question about the Evans Expedition. I was not here, I am sorry to say, but I understand that the Under-Secretary of State said that £4,000 of this Vote of £37,000 for the Bechuanaland Protectorate was to defray that expenditure. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he is right about that, and that he can defray that expenditure? First of all, this is a new sub-head; it is not in the main Estimate for the year. It is a sub-head which first appeared in the Supplementary Estimate of the 22nd June, and there it was taken in the form of a grant to meet the estimated deficiency on the account for the revenue and expenditure of the Protectorate,
which has been accentuated by abnormal conditions due to drought and foot-and-mouth disease.
That means that the grant was required for the general expenditure, but that that general expenditure was increased, the situation being accentuated owing to abnormal conditions of drought and foot-and-mouth disease. That might have covered the Evans Expedition, if it had been before June, but the form of the
Supplementary Estimate does not show that that grant was for that purpose. If the form of the Estimate means anything at all, it means that the extra £37,000 is merely on account of the two items: extra expenditure on drought and extra expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease; and it does not mean that it is an extra grant for the whole of the deficiency in that public expenditure. I may be wrong, but that is what my knowledge of these things makes me think it means, and I do not believe that, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's saying that the £4,000 is to be taken out of this, it can be taken out of it. On the other hand, if it can be taken out of it, I think it is nothing less than a public scandal that that item of expenditure should be smuggled in in this form without the House of Commons being made aware of it before the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. But I am not sure that he is right, and that he will get his £4,000 out of it as he thinks he will.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I notice that in respect of two items of this Supplementary Estimate there is this phrase:
Expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
That occurs with regard to item J, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and item K.2, the Newfoundland Grant-in-Aid. Who is going to account to this House for the proper expenditure of money voted by this House in respect of these two services? I am sorry I was not here to hear the statement of the Under-Secretary of State at the beginning of the proceedings, but I hope I am well within the truth when I suggest that here is a sum of £37,000 to be expended, we are told, in relation to certain drought and foot-and-mouth disease requirements. What assurance is there that the £37,000 will be so spent? This House would not allow the hon. Gentleman's Department to have £1,000,000 or even £37,000 for a particular purpose without expecting from him a proper account presented, so that the accounting officers of this House would be able to assure the appropriate Committee of the House that the money had been expended for that purpose and for no other purpose. Here is £37,000 allotted to Bechuanaland. How do we
know that it is to be spent in the sense that we are told it is to be spent?
The same question arises in regard to Newfoundland. I daresay these commissioners in Newfoundland will do their best to carry out the instructions of the Government, but this House is entitled to know that the money, once voted, is spent for the purpose for which it has been voted. Let me give an illustration how very meticulous this House is in regard to accounts. Suppose the hon. Gentleman's Department gets £12,000 for a particular purpose, for a particular department of services within its larger area of activities. If he has only spent £5,000 under that sub-head, he cannot adopt the rest of the money for any other purpose that he may think fit. He must return it to the Treasury. What assurance have we that the money in this Vote is going to be spent for the purpose to which it is here allotted? I gather that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us what the £40,000 is intended to cover in Newfoundland. Why should we be asked to give that amount without knowing on what it is to be expended?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have told the Committee.

Mr. JONES: I understood that the hon. Gentleman had not. We must, however, have an assurance through the medium of a proper audit that the money is so spent, and I express a strong dissent from this provision whereby money, voted by the House of Commons, may be spent—no doubt it will be properly spent—without in the ultimate resort this House having a proper audited statement as to how it has been expended. I should like to have from the hon. Gentleman a defence of the proposition that there is to be no audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of this House. After all, it is our money, and we are entitled, having granted it as freely as we have done, to an assurance that it has been properly spent.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I will at once deal with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). This is the usual form in which Estimates are presented for the expenditure of money in territories overseas. It is true that under J, for instance, it says:
Expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General,
but it goes on to say,
but he will be furnished by the Dominions Office with the audited accounts and with any report of the local auditor thereon.
The expenditure is audited in the territory concerned. The Dominions Office is responsible for seeing that that is done, and we are answerable to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for every item of the expenditure under this head. I can asure my hon. Friend that we shall see that nothing is spent on any matter for which there is no authority from the House of Commons. That is the usual form in any case which is parallel to the items under J and K.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is true in regard to J, but I was looking at J in conjunction with K to show the development of a procedure which I regard as undesirable. It is a rather new departure with regard to Newfoundland, and I hoped we should have from the hon. Gentleman a statement that since we are now making grants to Newfoundland in a new way we should get from the proper accounting officer of this House an audited statement every year as to how the money was spent. I was thinking of K more than of J.

Mr. MacDONALD: I think that the position in regard to Newfoundland is adequately covered by the practice. There is a local audit done there, and we shall be responsible for seeing that the money is spent on the purposes for which it is intended by the House of Commons to be spent.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman must seize the point. I am doing my best to put a new point. Until now there has been a Parliament in Newfoundland, and I presume there has been a proper accounting officer to that Parliament. There is now only a Commission which is possessed of almost autocratic powers. It will receive grant from this country and, since there is no Parliament in Newfoundland having an accounting officer in charge of the accounts, we are entitled, as so much money is involved, to have an audit made by our own accounting officer in order to see that the money is properly controlled.

Mr. MacDONALD: I think that the position is really adequately covered by the procedure followed in the case of grants-in-aid which we make to Governments in other parts of the world; the practice is satisfactory, and it will be satisfactory in the case of Newfoundland. At any rate, that is the answer to the question which my hon. Friend quite properly put. A number of other questions have been asked, and I will do my best to answer them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked under what terms the three commissioners who are being paid out of United Kingdom funds have been appointed. They have been appointed in every case for three years in the first instance, with the option on either side to give three months' notice at the termination of the first or the second year. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) asked what specific instructions these three United Kingdom commissioners had been given by the Government with regard to carrying out their duties. Their instructions are of a general character. The Committee knows what the object of the commission form of government is. It is to endeavour to set the island on its feet again economically and politically, and, of course, our three commissioners are to do everything they can to attain that object. At present they are looking into the question in a preliminary way. They have been there for only two or three weeks and have, therefore, not been able to get very far with their actual work.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) put his finger on this question of the £40,000 and asked us whether we were satisfied that such a sum would be best expended in the direction which I indicated. I reminded the Committee of certain recommendations which had been made by the Royal Commission, which are summarised from page 136 onwards, with regard to the resuscitation of the deep sea fisheries and the fall fisheries in Newfoundland. I can only says that the Government have been guided on this matter very largely by the report of the Royal Commission. The Commission said that there were many other matters which ought to engage the attention of the Government quickly, and my right hon. and
gallant Friend mentioned some of them and was ruled out of order for doing so. The point about this £40,000 for this particular fishery purpose is that the Commission regarded work in that direction as so urgent that the money should be made available for it straight away. We have been guided very largely by that opinion in deciding that that money should be available for what the Commission regarded as the most urgent work. This development of the deep sea and fall fisheries will definitely help the Newfoundland people, the poor fishermen, their wives and families.
It is not a case of putting £40,000 into the pockets of the bondholders; it is a case of resuscitating very important fisheries in order, as I said in my speech, to enable the fishing season to be extended by four months. The result of this expenditure, it is hoped, will be that the poor fishermen of Newfoundland will be able to earn money for an additional four months in the year during which, in recent years, they have not been able to earn any return for their labour. Therefore this is directly an effort to help the poor population of Newfoundland. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow asked whether there was any money out of this enormous sum of £234,000 to be paid in relief to the fishermen who are suffering poverty. The effect of that £40,000 should be to help them very materially, but the question of paying them relief in order to help them overcome the worst part of their present poverty is not covered under this Estimate. The money for any such relief is voted by the ordinary Newfoundland Budget, and it has amounted to several hundreds of thousands of dollars during this winter. Indeed, the amount has exceeded $1,000,000. That relief expenditure is going on independently of the Supplementary Estimate. My right hon. and gallant Friend for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked about other works of development and the reform of the Civil Service. I do not want to get out of order and perhaps the best thing I can do is simply to point out that the Commissioners have been in the island only since the 16th February and they have hardly had time to get very far in their investigations. They have not had time to make any reports to us by the ordinary mail which would enable us to give a report to the House of any
specific recommendations. But I can report the fact that they have lost no time in going into the question of tariffs. The Royal Commission thought that the present incidence of tariffs in Newfoundland was not as happy as it might be, and the Governor has, by telegram, asked us to send out on loan two officers from our Customs Department in order to help them in that matter. These two officers have gone.
Questions have been asked with regard to Bechuanaland. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked whether we could supply out of this Supplementary Estimate £4,000 for a particular purpose which has been discussed in this Debate. I am advised that it is possible and that there will be no difficulty about that. My hon. Friends in various parts of the Committee have protested at what they described as an attempt to hide that item of expenditure in this Estimate. It was never my intention to hide it. Those who were in the Committee when I spoke will recall that I had just begun to give some of the details on which it is proposed to expend this money when my hon. and gallant Friend interrupted and asked if this item was included. In reply I said that it was and I pointed out that if he had remained in his place I had intended to acquaint the Committee with the fact that it was proposed that something like £4,000 in this Supplementary Estimate was required to pay for the expedition under Admiral Evans.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Gentleman is the last man to try and conceal anything but we complain of the wording of the Supplementary Estimate itself.

Mr. MacDONALD: All I can say is that there is no intention on the part of anyone of the Dominions Office to be deceitful in this matter. And this Debate at any rate has brought out clearly that a certain amount of this money is required for that purpose. My hon. and gallant Friend asked under what authority Admiral Evans had undertaken that expedition. He undertook it under his own authority as Acting High Commissioner. He had full authority as such to take the action he did and to use his discretion in the matter, and no further authority was required. We were informed in the Dominions Office of what he was doing. The hon. and gallant Member will recall that
it was a matter which blew up in a few hours and that action was taken as a matter of urgency. The answer to his question is that the Acting High Commissioner had perfect authority on account of the office he was holding to take the action that he did without seeking authority elsewhere.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that no communication was made to the Admiralty before the expedition started?

Mr. MacDONALD: So far as I know, the Admiralty would receive the same kind of information as we did, and at the same time. Certainly, there was no question of the Admiralty giving authority to the Admiral in regard to taking that action. I take it that as Admiral commanding the station in South Africa he had authority, just as he had as acting High Commissioner, to use his discretion in a case of urgency, and that he could——

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You say that you and the Admiralty got information. Did you get that information in time to stop him, or not?

Mr. MacDONALD: I was answering the question which had been put to me as to the authority necessary for this action to be taken, and the answer to that is that he could do it on his own authority. We have to allow discretion to those in authority to make up their minds what action is necessary in an emergency. As for his reasons for taking the action, about which I have been questioned, I think I cannot do better than repeat the terms of an answer which my right hon. Friend gave on that matter at the time. In reply to a question my right hon. Friend then said:
I understand that the High Commissioner for South Africa considered that the presence of a naval escort was desirable as

a precautionary measure and by way of safeguard.
Then follows what, I think, is the important point:
I may mention that the Bechuanaland Protectorate Police Force were at the time largely engaged on special work from which it was impossible to release them, in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Protectorate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1933; col. 730, Vol. 281.]
That is the reason for the action which the Acting High Commissioner took with regard to that matter. I was asked how the sum of something less than £4,000 which will be necessary to defray the expenditure is made up, and I will give the Committee one or two details. The expenditure which come under this Supplementary Estimate is the expenditure on that expedition apart from the pay and normal cost of rationing the naval ratings, which will be borne by the Admiralty. The sum is made up, as far as we can know at present, for the figures are not quite complete, of such items as follow: The force had to be transported by rail through South African territory, and, as far as we know, the cost of that will be £2,163. The cost of transporting them within the Protectorate itself and outside South African territory, was £1,100. Those were the main items of expenditure, plus one or two smaller sums. It is those items which we have to defray and for which we are asking something under £4,000. Whether it be to the satisfaction of Members or not, I think I have answered the questions which have been put to me, and I hope we may now get the Supplementary Estimate.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £271,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 238.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[5.6 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stevenson, James


Banfield, John William
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dagger, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Goldie, Noel B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Albery, Irving James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Peaks, Captain Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Peat, Charles U.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Granville, Edgar
Penny, Sir George


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Greene, William P. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Atholl, Duchess of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rankin, Robert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rea, Walter Russell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reed, Arthur C. Exeter)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Blindell, James
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Remer, John R.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jamieson, Douglas
Rothschild, James A. de


Buchan, John
Janner, Barnett
Runge, Norah Cecil


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burnett, John George
Ker, J. Campbell
Salt, Edward W.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lees-Jones, John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Castlereagh, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lewis, Oswald
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Linsay, Noel Ker
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Somerset, Thomas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windser)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Soper, Richard


Clarry, Reginald George
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Mabane, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Conant, R. J. E.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cook, Thomas A.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cooke, Douglas
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooper, A. Duff
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cranborne, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crooke, J. Smedley
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Maitland, Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Doran, Edward
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Turton, Robert Hugh


Drewe, Cedric
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Elmley, Viscount
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Emrye-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Robert H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, William Shephard
Wise, Alfred R.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Munro, Patrick
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)



Fuller, Captain A. G.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
North, Edward T.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nunn, William



Question put, and agreed to.

EMPIRE MARKETING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a grant to the Empire Marketing Fund, including a Grant-in-Aid.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: At the time when the provisional estimate for the Empire Marketing Fund was made out the Empire Marketing Board was in a rather uncertain position. As a result of the Ottawa Conference a special Imperial Committee had been set up to look into the whole question of inter-Imperial machinery for economic co-operation and among other bodies, it was to look into the future of the Empire Marketing Board. Therefore, its future was somewhat uncertain, and in the original Estimate the Government allowed for a certain arrangement. We had guaranteed that we would maintain the fund and the Empire Marketing Board in normal working order for the first six months of the year, up to the end of September. Our original Estimate therefore allowed for the payment of salaries in full for six months, and for the continuation of the approved publicity and the research and other services for six months. The Estimate allowed, during the second six months, for the payment only of the minimum salaries which would be necessary in the event of the Empire Marketing Board having to be wound up, and for a continuation of certain grants for research work pending any decision as to how that money for research work was to be found in future, when the Empire Marketing Board came to an end.
The Committee will remember that the Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation recommended that the Empire Marketing Board should come to an end, and therefore we had to go into the whole question of how certain grants towards a good deal of essential research work could be provided in the future. Those grants had been made by the Empire Marketing Board for varying periods, sometimes up to five years, and it was not only undesirable but obviously impossible that those grants should come to an end immediately. The Government have therefore been in negotiation with
other Governments concerned to see how that money could be provided. I am very glad to say that we have succeeded in making satisfactory provision for practically all the research work in the future. In practically every case we have succeeded in getting either a Dominion Government or some other Government to take on the financial responsibility, or we ourselves are to bear the financial expense or a part of the expense. That question has been settled satisfactorily as regards the future. The £30,000 for which we are now asking is needed entirely to defray our contribution towards research grants in the second six months, over and above the money which was voted for that purpose in the original Estimate. I hope that the Vote will be approved.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I suppose that this is the last we are to hear of the Empire Marketing Board. According to this Estimate, the Board has now been dissolved and the fund will be continued only until 31st March, 1934. This is the end of what I think has been a wonderful experiment in the interests of the Empire, and I should have thought that the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who has been chairman of the board for several years, might have been here to-day, or might have sent some sort of apology.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I say that my right hon. Friend intended to be here in order to pay a tribute to what has been a wonderful work, but unfortunately he has had to retire to bed, not being very well.

Mr. LUNN: I am very sorry, and he has my sympathy in that connection. I was not aware of that, and that was why I said that I thought he might have been here on this occasion. A week or two ago we had a discussion in this House on an aspect of this subject, but the Empire Marketing Board did not come into any part of it. I suggest that the Empire Marketing Board is the greatest machine that we have had, and its continuance would have been the best that we could do in the future in the interests of the Dominions, if only the Dominions had come into co-operation with us. Every effort has been made to get them to come to a decision about
this board, so that the board might have been prolonged into the future. According to my knowledge of what has taken place in other discussions and conferences, nothing that has ever been discussed or suggested has had so much value as the Empire Marketing Board for the whole of the British Empire.
This Vote of £30,000 finishes the business. We were granted £1,000,000 a year, but we have never spent anything like it upon the Empire Marketing Board. We took more than £2,000,000, which has been spent in scientific research by the board, in establishing centres in various parts of the Empire and in creating teams of scientific workers in all parts of the Empire who have done a great deal to improve the production of many articles. Those articles now come from this country in a much better form than they ever came before the Empire Marketing Board was in existence. Despite what the Under-Secretary has said, we have lost a good deal of that effective work in the transference of the board's functions to other bodies that have been in existence before, and that have not the ginger in them that was possessed by the Empire Marketing Board. The development of market intelligence, statistical information and marketing promotion which were functions of the Marketing Board are all to be lost to the Empire. We have had to find all the money—every penny of it—and if people could have seen the value of what was achieved in the way of market promotion by the Empire Marketing Board, they would have taken care that the board was continued and that it was not allowed to die on 31st March, 1934. With regard to the publicity of the board, I would like to know what is to be done with the 1,800 boards that were distributed all over the United Kingdom.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As this is the last occasion upon which this Vote will come before the Committee, the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly entitled to make a funeral oration, but I do not think that we can go into future policy any further than is consistent with such a funeral oration.

Mr. LUNN: I do not suppose we can, but as we are bound to be at the ceremony we might try to find out what is to happen on the day after the funeral. We
are in possession of 1,800 boards which have displayed the advertisements of Empire produce for a good many years in the most prominent positions in the Kingdom. The sites were carefully selected and the advertisements were of great value. I think we ought to know what is going to be done with the boards, whether any money is to be got out of them, and whether they are to be used by private enterprise, Government departments or municipal authorities. We ought to know whether Empire publicity work is to continue. About 21,000 schools in the United Kingdom have been supplied with literature, and children in elementary schools to-day have a much better knowledge of geography as the result of the work of the Empire Marketing Board than they had before.
Is all this work to cease? It seems that that is to be the position. I know of nothing that has been of greater advantage to the overseas part of the Empire than the work of the Empire Marketing Board, and I know of nothing that is likely to take its place. The Dominions have failed to take advantage of the opportunity of co-operation, and it is an opportunity which may never occur to them again at so cheap a rate for their own development, and for their own marketing arrangements in the United Kingdom. I take it for granted that this is the end, and that some other means have to be found. In this Vote we see the end of an experiment which was of greater advantage than anything which was done at Ottawa or anywhere else in the interests of the Dominions.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: While not taking part in the funeral ceremony, I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State if he can give us any information about the actual wooden boards. It is a great pity that this enormous experiment has been allowed to lapse, and there must be a great many causes of national interest for the furtherance of which the boards could be used; causes non-controversial, non-party and in the national interests. I have made an investigation, but I cannot find how many have been sold and how many scrapped.

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I associate myself with every word that has been spoken by the hon. Member for Rothwell
(Mr. Lunn), in regard to the admirable work done by the Empire Marketing Board. My right hon. Friend and I have taken previous opportunities in this House to express our very great regret that some of those who might have helped in continuing the Empire Marketing Board were not ready to play their part, and that therefore the board has had to come to an end. I have risen only to answer the questions which have been put to me in regard to the approximately 1,700 boards which were used for the posters of the Empire Marketing Board. Practically all the boards were, in the first place, offered to local authorities so that those authorities might take them over and use them for purposes of propaganda for improving the health of our population. Of those, 800 boards have been taken over by local authorities. The balance has either been made over to the private owners of the sites upon which the boards hung, or the boards are now in storage in the Office of Works. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) would like to have one of the boards, he must apply to the Office of Works, and he may purchase it for a reasonable sum.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919; Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921; Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, and the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933; Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896; Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, the Caledonian Canal, Crinan Canal and Menai Bridge; Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund and for Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage Investigation.

5.28 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): There appears to be quite a number of items included in this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee will notice that the increase and the appropriation-in-aid amount roughly to the same total, and therefore the amount for which I ask is in the nature of a Token Vote. Hon. Members will
realise that it is not possible to increase the amount which is taken as an appropriation-in-aid above the original Estimate without submitting it once again to the Committee. The principal item of increased expenditure is that of £8,000, in connection with the licensing system for goods vehicles set up under the Road and Rail Traffic Act. That Act was not only not passed, but was not even published, at the time that the last general Estimates were laid, and this expenditure therefore had not been foreseen.
The licensing system in its entirety has not been brought to the full, but all the preliminary stages of setting up machinery are being taken. It is necessary to provide the Traffic Commissioners with clerical assistance, and £8,000 is the expenditure estimated by them for this work during this year. It is, of course, a cost recoverable from the Road Fund. Next is, I think, a sum of £500 by way of additional provision required by the Traffic Commissioners for that part of their duty which consists of enforcing the provisions of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which is the licensing system for passenger vehicles. It is the duty of the licensing authority, the commissioners, when any breaches of the regulations are brought to their notice, to enforce the maintenance of the regulations by legal action. Hon. Members will realise that it is not possible to forecast quite accurately the total amount that will be expended in any one year, and that is the reason for this Supplementary Estimate. This amount, too, is recoverable from the Road Fund.
The next item is the sum of £1,420 required for the repair and improvement of a house which is harbour property at Holyhead. The lease under which that house was held has recently come to an end, and it was necessary, before a new tenant could be found, to re-decorate it and put in certain improvements. Under the terms of the old lease, £750 has been paid by the estate of the late tenant, and that £750 is one of the items making up the total Appropriations-in-Aid, namely, £10,140. The net expense, therefore, which will fall upon the Ministry in respect of this house is reduced to £670, a sum which it was absolutely necessary to expend if we were to be able to find a new tenant for the house.
The last item is for expenses of the London Passenger Transport Arbitration
Tribunal. That tribunal was set up under the London Passenger Transport Act, and its chief function is to arbitrate between the board and those companies which the board is absorbing, as to the compensation to be paid to them. The expenses of the tribunal fall, in the first instance, upon the Ministry, and they are recoverable finally from the London Passenger Transport Board. The sum asked for is for clerical and office expenditure which has been necessary during this year; it does not represent anything for the remuneration of the tribunal. Of course, the whole of the £1,150 will eventually, when the proceedings have terminated, be recoverable from the London Passenger Transport Board.
The Appropriations-in-Aid are composed of the items I have mentioned, and various small increases on the estimated appropriations included in the general Estimate. The only other point is in regard to the reduction of the expenditure by the sum of £920, which represents an anticipated saving on Ramsgate Harbour. Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that receipts from that harbour were larger than was anticipated.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's remark about Ramsgate Harbour. Apparently nothing has been spent on it during the present year, and the sum of £920 is being returned. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the case that there has not been any expenditure at all this year, or whether the income has more than met the expenditure. I should also like to hear whether, in view of its past, it is likely to become a paying proposition. I know it has been a bit of a bugbear from one point view and another, and I am wondering whether this will be the end of the liabilities on Ramsgate Harbour so far as the Ministry is concerned.
With regard to the item for salaries, wages and allowances, I understand that these are recoverable, but the expenditure incurred in the Minister's Department for carrying out the work of the licensing system and so on will be charged to the Road Fund, and I should like to hear from the Minister that separate accounts will be kept regarding this expenditure, in order to see that no inordinate calls
are made on the Road Fund. I am not suggesting that there would be anything of that kind, but only want to be sure that there will be no overlapping in the book-keeping, and that money will not be called for from the Road Fund which might be better spent in connection with road improvements and so on.
On the question of Holyhead Harbour, I am satisfied from the statement of the Minister that the money has been spent in a proper manner, and that what has happened is quite a usual thing in view of the lease falling in. There is not very much to be said about these Estimates. They are quite plain, and the Minister has made a very clear statement to the Committee. There is on the Paper in my name an Amendment to reduce the Vote by £5, but, as it is only a token vote of £10, I think we can trust the Minister with that amount of money until he comes to ask for a further sum; I do not think he will run away with it. The Department have come out very well as compared with the Estimate of last year, and I hope that the Estimates for the coming year will come out equally well, and that we shall be able to suggest further developments when the Vote is before the Committee of Supply.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

5.36 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: This Estimate is also for £10. A net sum of £10 only is required, as the anticipated excesses in expenditure under the sub-heads referred to are expected to be offset by an increase of revenue brought into account as appropriations-in-aid. The Committee will, perhaps, wish to have a short explanation of the items. The first item is for salaries, wages and allowances, for which an additional sum of £2,000 is required. This refers mainly to the salaries of additional staff for the Passport Office, to meet an increased demand for passports. There is from time to time at different periods of the year an expan-
sion or contraction of staff owing to seasonal requirements. The expansion is met by borrowing men from the Ministry of Labour's staff, and when the work contracts they are returned. The two spheres of work to some extent rise and fall together, that is to say, the one rises at the same time as the other falls. This increase is also partly due to some overtime pay for the clerical staff at the Foreign Office when dealing with some exceptional emergencies.
Under Sub-head B—Messengers' Salaries—a further sum of £300 is required to cover the salary of an additional messenger in the Communications Department of the Foreign Office during part of the year. This is the Department responsible for enciphering and deciphering telegrams. There has been an increase in the number of such telegrams recently. Although the additional man required is nominally a King's Messenger, he is not, as is sometimes supposed, a man who is sent on journeys with dispatches, but he is a responsible person in a confidential position dealing with the enciphering and deciphering of telegrams. The additional amount asked for for telephones is largely in respect of exceptional trunk calls, for example, in connection with the debt communications between Washington and London, and, again, in connection with such matters as the negotiation of the Trade Agreement with the Argentine Republic and similar matters.
As regards the additional sum which has been found to be needed under Sub-head F, the original Estimate was necessarily prepared in some haste, and the cost of preparing the new Geological Museum was only very roughly estimated. Now that the work has all been carried out, it has been found that the estimate was a good deal less than has actually been expended, though, on the other hand, there are various small savings to set against it, and I have to ask the Committee to authorise the additional sum stated in the Supplementary Estimate. Although these amounts, added together, come to the substantial total of £11,300, nearly the whole of it is in fact met by appropriations-in-aid, and, consequently, I have to ask for the authority of the Committee for the net difference, which is a matter of £10.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith, including British Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice.

5.42 p.m.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The sum of £138,000 was provided in the 1933 Estimate for the payment of His Majesty's Government's contribution to the League of Nations, at a rate of exchange of 17.55 gold francs to the £. In actual fact a payment of approximately 40 per cent. of the contribution was made in May, 1933, at a rate of 17.33 gold francs to the £, and the balance was paid last October at a rate equivalent to 15.88 gold francs to the £. These payments, therefore, were unfortunately, at rates less favourable than the rate assumed in the Estimate, and the result has been that the provision of £138,000 has proved inadequate to the extent of £9,000. I have, therefore, to ask the Committee for this additional sum to meet that position.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: This Supplementary Estimate asks for a further £9,000 in respect of this country's contribution to the League of Nations. On page 10 of the Estimate, hon. Members will see this explanation:
The contribution of His Majesty's Government, which is fixed in gold francs, has not been increased, but, in consequence of the rise in the value of the gold franc, the sterling cost of meeting this contribution is in excess of the amount originally estimated.
The Lord Privy Seal has referred to this fact, but what we are not told in the White Paper, nor have we been reminded of it by the Lord Privy Seal, is that, if other countries paid their due contributions——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this occasion. The hon. Member can raise it on the main Estimate.

Mr. LEWIS: I would respectfully point out that if in fact these other contributions were paid this Supplementary Estimate would not be necessary, and I suggest that on these grounds——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member can put that case forward. An original Estimate is made for £138,000 at a certain rate of exchange. The rate of exchange then becomes more unfavourable. It seems to me that the hon. Member's argument might be in order on the original Estimate whether we ought to have given so much, but he cannot raise that point now.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: When the original Estimate was submitted, no specific rate of exchange was mentioned. Therefore, surely my hon. Friend is entitled to say that, if contributions had been paid by other members of the League, this Supplementary Estimate would not now be before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think not. When the original Estimate was made, I do not know at what rate of exchange it was calculated, but that was the time to argue that if other members of the League of Nations had paid their contributions the amount now asked from this country would not be so large.

Mr. LEWIS: Do I understand you to rule that, while the Committee are entitled to vote against the Motion, they are not entitled to urge any reason why they should do so?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member can explain why the exchange has altered, he might be able to get that in. That is the sole issue in the Estimate.

Captain EVANS: As we are unable to raise the larger and more important issue whether it is desirable or not that the taxpayer should be called upon to make a large contribution to the League of Nations when other nations are in default, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any evidence at all that other nations are making similar provision to make up the difference on the basis of the gold franc in the same way as we are? I think we are the only important member of the League which is so anxious to take the earliest possible step to make up this difference.

Mr. PETHERICK: If the hon. Member opposite votes against the Government on this matter, surely he will be voting against it because the exchange has gone the wrong way.

Mr. EDEN: All subscriptions are paid, if paid at all, in gold francs. If any other country is similarly circumstanced to ours in respect of their currency, they must take similar action.

CLASS VII.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

5.48 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This Estimate arises out of the necessity of adding to the technical staff of the Office of Works this financial year in order to prepare for increased Post Office expenditure in the main, and a certain increase of expenditure on other building Votes next year. If you are to spend more money on buildings in the following financial year, you cannot wait until that financial year in order to get your staff ready. Drawings and similar things have to be prepared beforehand. As a result of the carrying out of the Bridgeman Committee's recommendations for the Post Office, and of the energy of the Postmaster-General, Post Office work, particularly in the direction of new telephone exchanges, is going ahead faster than was anticipated when the original Estimate made in January, 1933, was approved. We have to do now extra work in the Office of Works in preparing for new works for the Post Office next year. In this financial year the Postmaster-General has arranged for the acceleration of 26 of these schemes, and preparation is required now for 36 additional schemes for next year, all of which means that the agency work of the Office of Works has to be expanded. Consequently, in the last few months of this financial year, the Office of Works has had to take on 55 new draughtsmen in the Chief Architect's division and six assistants in the Chief Quantity Surveyor's division. Their salaries form the greater part of this Supplementary Estimate. There is a small item for increased travelling owing to the fact that, particularly in the early stages of these
schemes, various sites have to be inspected and gone over and the architects and their staffs have to see them and settle matters connected with them, and that means extra salary.
The second item that causes the Estimate to be brought before the Committee arises owing to the fact that the Postmaster-General has not paid me for the agency services quite as I expected he would. The principal reason for this is probably not what would appear on the face of it, but that work that we expected to be paid for in this year was paid not in this financial year but in the last financial year. The Postmaster-General last March paid £7,000 which we had anticipated would be received in April. Owing to the system of annual accounting, that meant that there was a windfall to the Exchequer last year, and that makes a deficit of the £7,000 which I expected to get in this accounting year. Apart from that, the remainder of the £12,000 is due largely to the fact that several of the Post Office schemes for which we had expected payment of agency fees in this financial year have not fallen due in this financial year. The principal case, for example, is that of the new Mint Telephone Exchange. That is not exactly the fault of the Postmaster-General. He needed very large accommodation, and the only way we could provide it was to erect a building of exceptional height. There has been a good deal of talk in the public Press and elsewhere about new buildings in London going up to an undue height, having regard to their immediate neighbours. Before allowing the Postmaster-General to go on with the scheme as it was drawn, we decided to refer the matter to the Royal Fine Art Commission for its opinion. It made certain recommendations and modified the proposed building, and that involved a certain amount of delay in the erection of the building, and I have not got the money from the Postmaster-General that I expected in this accounting year. That explains how this Supplementary Estimate has arisen.

CLASS VI.

BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty,
to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain.

5.55 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Estimating for the beet sugar subsidy services is a matter of very great difficulty. We have to form an estimate in January for an article manufactured from a crop which is not sown until April. The crop is very susceptible to climatic influences during the growing period, and the harvesting does not commence until September, and does not finish until the new year. We can, of course, have forecasts of the contracts to be entered into between the farmers and factories, but they do not give us the real amount. They give simply an indication of the acreage that is likely to be planted. In 1933 contracting had hardly commenced when an Estimate had to be made. The other essential factors, the yield of beet per acre and the percentage of sugar content, are a matter of the bounty of nature and, like all bounties, you have to guess at them in advance. There is not much in the way of a normal expectation to serve as a basis, because the industry has only been going for a few years and has been in process of rapid development. The yield has varied from 6.5 to 8.8 tons to the acre, and the sugar content on 16.1 to 17.7 per cent. We can only do our best in the way of estimating, always with the proviso that we may have to return to the House if our estimate has turned out incorrectly. Last year we put down the probable acreage at 340,000, as compared with 256,000 in the previous year. This area, producing beet at an estimated yield of 8¼ tons to the acre, with a sugar content in the region of the average of 17 per cent., was expected to afford the factories material for the production of sugar and molasses qualifying for a total subsidy payment of £2,900,000. An Estimate for this amount was accordingly submitted to and voted by the House, and the only subject for discussion now is the reason why this particular sum for which we estimated was not an accurate one. It is not in any way connected with the policy which led to the House voting that original sum.
The area planted amounted to 366,000 acres, which is 26,000 acres over the
estimated area. That would have increased our commitment by £220,000, assuming that the other factors were near the mark. But the ultimate yield turned out to be nine tons to the acre, but the sugar content was 16.3 per cent. which was below the average, and these two factors cancelled each other out to a certain extent. The unexpectedly high acreage and yield are responsible for this Supplementary Estimate. The total amount of the subsidy paid on the 1933 crop amounts to £3,400,000. Of that, £80,000 on account of molasses will be carried into 1934. There is a balance of £30,000 for 1932 in molasses which fell due for payment in 1933, so that the net total amount paid in the financial year 1933 is £3,350,000, that is to say, a Vote of £2,900,000, and a supplementary Vote of £450,000. The Committee may ask why this high yield, since we had a very dry summer which might have been expected to have produced poor roots? In the first place, the crop had a good send off. The conditions of seeding time were ideal and germination was uniform. The crop had a bad set back during the growing period, because from July to the beginning of harvesting time the amount of rain which fell was again negligible. First supplies to the factories were very rich in sugar and very small in size. When the rain came in September, it started the second top growth which is very detrimental to sugar content. The plant, becoming aware of capital investment, suddenly turns into development and thereby draws heavily upon its accounts, which is what we rely upon to plunder. The plant, growing in this way, reversed our early expectations. The yield turned out to be very great. The amount of beet sugar content, the invested capital in those beets, was poor.
I should also mention that the workers were very efficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "Inflation!"] I should not like to enter into a discussion with authorities so great as hon. Members opposite on the subject of inflation. I prefer to call it development. The efficiency of the workers who handled the crop was higher. That is the cause of the Supplementary Estimate. They handled the crop well. They cultivated it in a very skilful fashion. Very skilled singling, and very adequate hoeing and cleaning during the growing period, all of which are most
important in a time of drought, led to the higher yield which is the cause of the higher Estimate for which I am now asking the Committee to vote the corresponding subsidy. The effects of the drought were felt severely on the lighter lands, and the average yield figure was a great deal less than in the areas where heavy soils predominate, notably the Fen areas, where the average yield for certain factories was as high as 10½ tons to the acre. That is approaching Continental standards of beet culture, and it has been done with only about 10 years of experience.
It might be worth while to say a few words about the manufacturing efficiency. Factory efficiency has shown a progressive increase. The peak was reached in 1933 when the amount of sugar extracted, taking into account that contained in molasses, was 97 per cent. of the whole of the sugar content. That exceeded the rate of 1926 when the sugar content of the beet was 1 per cent. higher. That is to say, although the beets contained 1 per cent. less sugar, the efficiency of the extraction was such that more sugar was in fact extracted from those beets. The grower has a material interest in factory efficiency. Under the co-operative contract issued by some factories in recent years, and now offered by all factories for 1934, ultimately the price is determined on the basis of the factory income. The higher the factory efficiency the greater the factory income; the greater the factory income the more the farmer receives for his beets. The general adaptation of co-operative contracts in this matter is very well worth noting. The bringing in of the producer into partnership with the processor is a very interesting development in modern agricultural practice, and, as I said on another occasion, it has a parallel in the technique of the bacon industry where the pig producer is being offered, and, I hope, is accepting, co-operative contracts on the same lines. He stands in with the processor, and the greater efficiency of the processor means a better return to the primary producer.
The final beet price is not yet known. Under the co-operative contracts it cannot be determined until the company's books have been audited, but it is estimated that the figure will be at least 41s. per ton. That price is somewhat
below last year's price owing to the lower basic price and sugar content, but the resulting net return of £18 10s. per acre is about the same owing to the higher yield. The total sum paid by factories to growers of beet amounted to about £6,750,000. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt be interested in the growers' share of the beet subsidy, but any apportionment in that respect is speculative, because it will have to take into account the beet price to the producers. It is a difficult figure to ascertain, but an indication of the general position is given by the fact that for the whole period the sum paid for beets represents about 60 per cent. of the total net factory income from all sources. The figure for the past three years is about 70 per cent. On the factory side the production of sugar was 463,000 tons; of molasses, 130,000 tons; and of dried pulp, 300,000 tons. The sugar figure represents about a quarter of the total requirements of the country, that is to say, we still buy three pounds of sugar from abroad for every pound of sugar we produce at home.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little beyond the bounds of his Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am only too ready, Sir Dennis, to draw my remarks to a close. I should be most unwilling to broaden the field of discussion, more particularly since we are aware that there is a Bill which will shortly come before the House where a wide field of discussion will be possible, and on which, no doubt, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will wish to have a full review of the position.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether it would be in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman to supplement the figures which he has given and to say what was the value of the sugar produced with respect to which we are paying this subsidy? What was the worth of the sugar which was produced in the year?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that it would be in order to ask for such information, but it would be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentlemen to make very much use of it in further debate. The only figure at issue is the increased amount which is required.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot give the figure which the right hon. Gentleman desires, but I will do my best to ascertain it. That, briefly, is the picture which I present to the Committee. It is simply a matter of estimating. On this matter we have not estimated that the British producer would sow as great an acreage or obtain as high a yield for beet as he did. I think hon. Members will agree that in that there is nothing of which to be ashamed. The British beet producer sowed more in the way of beets and got a better yield. The figures which we give are on the basis previously determined by the House of Commons, and I suggest that it is not unreasonable for me to hope that the Committee will give us this Estimate without any very great discussion.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I appreciate to the full the manner in which the Minister of Agriculture has put forward the details of this Vote. I also realise the limitations placed upon us in the form in which the Vote comes before us. If the attention of the Minister of Agriculture had not been drawn to that fact, I should have been in rather a more difficult position. Nevertheless, he has given us a very fair impression of the complexities and of the various factors which have to be taken into account in this matter which will have enlightened many Members of the Committee as to the details which have to be considered in this industry. I do not think that anyone would feel perturbed by the fact that the growers have been able to produce more from the land than perhaps they have done in previous years. No one can deny that it is a good thing to recognise increased productivity by the application of method and science to this industry. But I am rather perturbed at another point arising out of the additional Estimate of £450,000. It is the fact that one of the factors which makes it incumbent upon us to give further help is the increased acreage which was sown. I have not quite grasped who is tilling this extra acreage. If the acreage has been extended to beyond what was anticipated in the earlier stages I should rather incline to the belief that it was not a sufficient reason to call upon this House for the payment for the extra acreage.
I wonder what would actually have happened if the acreage had been doubled. We would have been asked to pay double the amount contained in the Supplementary Estimate.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that this is a very important subject. It is very important not only because of agriculture but because of the financial aspect which it presents to the nation. We have to be particularly careful in view of the fact that I was informed, in an answer to a question the other day, that £39,000,000 had already been contributed to this industry since 1924. That being the case, I should have thought that the general council in control of the industry would have been capable of ascertaining exactly what could be done with regard to extended acreage, and perhaps exercise a good deal of control. It is for those reasons that I move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

6.15 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: It is recognised that the Motion before the Committee is of a limited character. We cannot to-day discuss the whole policy of beet sugar subsidies. When the Bill is introduced on the Financial Resolution now on the Order Paper we shall have opportunities for full dress debate, of which I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will take advantage. But even the limited proposal of to-day is not unimportant. A sum of nearly £500,000, in addition to the large Estimate which was presented and voted at an earlier stage, in these times is a matter which should attract the attention of the House of Commons and the country. It is due to the increase of acreage and of yield which have taken place and which were not foreseen when the original Estimate was presented. The Minister of Agriculture says that these facts are due to the bounty of nature. They are also due to the nature of the bounty. It is a characteristic of this subsidy that the more sugar beet that is grown and the more sugar that is produced the more the taxpayer has to pay. That is not necessary or essential in practice.
When the wheat subsidy was introduced it was arranged that it should not be an encouragement to a great expansion of wheat cultivation at the expense of the consumer. If more acreage was culti-
vated that did not involve a greater charge upon the consumer, but the money that was available was divided among a larger number of people in smaller proportions. That has not been done in regard to the beet sugar subsidy. A bribe has been given to cultivators to cease growing other crops, which might give an equal amount of employment, and to concentrate upon this crop, and the more they do so the more we are called upon to pay and, as on this occasion, we are obliged to vote an additional £500,000 out of the taxpayers' pockets. I protest against this additional expenditure or any additional expenditure upon the beet sugar industry for various reasons, and one of them is that the Government have not fulfilled the very definite pledge that was given nearly two years ago that an inquiry should be held into the whole policy. That was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, not of last year but of the year 1932. He clearly stated the point and used these words:—
As to whether this concession should be continued in a future year, or as to what is to happen when the present Subsidy Act expires in 1934, I am not at present in a position to express an opinion, but, with a view to receiving guidance on this and other matters, the Government have further decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions of the United Kingdom sugar industry as a whole, including production, refining, and distribution, and to ask this body to report to them before the present Subsidy Act expires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1932; col. 1435, Vol. 264.]
Now, we are asked to vote this additional £500,000 without the guidance of any such inquiry.

Mr. ELLIOT: We are still under the Subsidy Act. We have not yet got to the point which the right hon. Gentleman can very rightly raise when we come later on to the proposal to prolong the beet sugar subsidy. We are well within the limits of time stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not think so, if I may respectfully say so, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on 19th April, 1932, nearly two years ago, and he was not committing himself to what was to happen when the Subsidy Act expired. He raised two points as to whether the concession should be continued in a future year—this is a future year—or
as to what is to happen when the present Subsidy Act expires in 1934.
He said:
I am not yet at present in a position to express an opinion.
The matter might have been revised for this year. It has not been revised, and we are now asked to vote this Supplementary Estimate. My contention is, that before Parliament is asked to vote an Original or a Supplementary Estimate or to take any action in respect of this industry, it ought to have had the guidance of the Committee of Inquiry which was definitely promised nearly two years ago, and has not been appointed.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant on that occasion, but I think it is clear that the arrangements for this year could not have been altered without legislation. If so, the right hon. Gentleman is not in order in enlarging upon that point now.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I recognise that I am on somewhat uncertain ground on the point of Order in raising the question of inquiry. Therefore, in deference to what you have said, I will pass from that and say not another word about it. There is, however, another point which is definitely in order, or if it is not in order then the White Paper which has been presented to the Committee is out of order. The White Paper dealing with the Supplementary Estimate has the following footnote:
The Excise Duty at existing rates on sugar and molasses manufactured from beet grown in Great Britain is estimated to yield in 1933, £1,911,000.
I assume that I shall be fully in order in commenting on that footnote. Why is it inserted? Not because it is a piece of interesting information, but I imagine as an argument from the point of view of the Government why the House of Commons should vote this additional money. I do not know whether this is in accordance with precedent, but I assume that it is. Here we have a footnote saying that the Excise Duty on British-produced sugar yielded to the Exchequer nearly
£2,000,000. We are asked to draw the conclusion that there is a set-off to the subsidy. The subsidy is a heavy charge upon the taxpayer, but we are asked to assume that the taxpayer gets a great deal of his money back, because there is
a tax levied upon this sugar. As a matter of fact, the fiscal bearing of this matter from the point of view of the Exchequer is exactly the opposite. The more beet sugar is produced the greater is the charge upon the taxpayer. The tax upon sugar imported from foreign countries is about double the tax levied upon home produced sugar.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the original Estimate is mentioned here, but he will not think the insertion of this reference to the original Estimate gives him the right to argue the principle of the beet sugar subsidy, on the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. I do think that I am now in order. I do not contest the fact that I was straying beyond the point of Order in discussing the committee of inquiry, but I would point out that the figure mentioned in the footnote which I have quoted does not relate to the original Estimate but to the Excise Duty, which is a different matter from the subsidy. The footnote is put in as an indication to the House and the public that the Excise Duty is a matter of importance and that beet sugar has yielded that amount. If I am out of order, is not the footnote out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. The White Paper does not only mention the additional sum required but it also mentions the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite proper for the information of the Committee to compare with the original Estimate and the revised Estimate, that is to say with the total Estimate, the Excise Duty to be put against it. That fact does not give the right hon. Gentleman the right to discuss the principle of the comparative operation of the subsidy and of the Excise Duty.

Sir H. SAMUEL: My contention is that it is a misleading footnote, and, indeed, a dishonest footnote. It would lead the Committee to believe that beet sugar production in this country is an advantage to the Exchequer, whereas it is a disadvantage to the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is getting on to the main question as to the advantage or otherwise of the subsidy.
In discussing that he would be out of order. Whether the footnote is wrong or not is a matter of opinion. I must not allow myself to be misled by the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. SAMUEL: My point is whether as it is placed before us it is properly couched, or whether it is a right footnote to have put in, apart altogether from the merits of the subsidy. I suggest that it is not a proper footnote to put before the House of Commons and that it is not a proper consideration that we should have before us when we are voting the Supplementary Estimate. If I am told that I am out of order, the Government are out of order in this footnote. If there was to be a footnote they ought to have said: "Although there is Excise Duty which has yielded a certain amount, if there had been no beet sugar produced in this country the amount that would have been yielded in taxation would have been not in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 but in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000."

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman might quite well complain that he thinks the White Paper is disorderly, or misleading, or dishonest, but even if that be so it does not give him the right to discuss the principle of the beet sugar subsidy.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I am dealing purely with the point of the footnote. I submit that such a footnote ought not to appear, and that if there was to be any footnote dealing with Excise Duty it ought to have been of a nature to show the whole of the facts. I submit that this is not a question of arguing the original subsidy or policy but the purely narrow point of the footnote, and that it is not in order as it appears on the White Paper. The Government ought not to have presented the White Paper in this form.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is in order in making his complaint upon that particular point. What I am trying to make clear to him is that I cannot allow him, because of that, to go further into the question of the advisability of the principle upon which the subsidy is based. I would remind him that, however disorderly the
Government may have been in the production of the White Paper, it does not give him the right to be disorderly in Debate.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I will keep myself strictly to the very narrow point, and I think I shall be within your Ruling in referring to the footnote and in quoting an answer which was given in the House to a question which I addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th December. I asked:
What is the total sum that has been paid in Excise Duty on beet-sugar produced in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the subsidy; and what sum would have been paid in taxation on an equal quantity of sugar if imported from Empire countries and if imported from foreign countries, respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1933; col. 1323, Vol. 284.]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied that the total amount of Excise Duty paid on beet-sugar was £10,981,000. If the sugar had been imported from Empire countries it would have been £11,456,000 and if imported from non-Empire countries it would have been nearly £23,000,000. Therefore, there was an enormous loss to the Exchequer through the encouragement of sugar-beet growing in this country compared with what would have happened if the sugar had been imported from foreign countries. Therefore, if a White Paper of this kind is to be presented it should not have been presented in this misleading form, merely asserting that so much Excise Duty has been levied, but it should have been completed by saying that so much Excise Duty has been levied upon beet sugar, but that if that sugar had not been produced and if no subsidy had been granted a very much larger sum in taxation would have been obtained by the Exchequer from imported sugar than was obtained from beet sugar. There are other points with which I should have wished to deal but the Chair has very properly confined the Debate to the narrow limits which are legitimate to a Supplementary Estimate and, therefore, I will conclude by expressing my regret that we still see that this industry, which was established with a view to becoming self-supporting after a short period, is not self-supporting but year after year comes to Parliament for a fresh grant from the heavily burdened taxpayer.

6.31 p.m.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: As one who has been concerned for a number of years with the sugar beet industry, I cannot allow the observations of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to pass entirely unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the delusion that this Supplementary Estimate has something to do with the extended period which is contemplated. It has nothing of the kind. It concerns the last of the 10 campaigns authorised under the original Beet Sugar Subsidy Act. The right hon. Gentleman also seems to desire that the acreage should be reduced as much as possible and that the factories should manufacture as little as possible. May I point out to him that factories can only be run efficiently and economically if they are fully employed, and that as they become more and more efficient year by year they are able to take rather more beet in order to be fully employed and, of course, give employment to more people. The same thing applies on the farm. Each year a farmer who is cultivating sugar beet gets a little more efficient in the handling of the product; he gets a little more per acre and also a better sugar content. This accounts for the greater part of the additional production of sugar for which the Supplementary Estimate is required. The balance is due to the fact that in 1933 the Kelham factory was operating. In the previous year it did not succeed in obtaining a sufficient contract acreage to run a campaign, and at the time when the estimate was made, that is in January, it was impossible to have foreseen that the Kelham factory would run a campaign at all in 1933. I am not going to follow the right hon. Member for Darwen in his partially successful attempt to deal with the general policy of the sugar beet subsidy, but I would remind him that unless every step was taken to promote an increased quantity per acre and an increased efficiency in the factory, this industry would have broken down during the depression and arable agriculture in many parts of the country would have completely collapsed.

6.36 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture one or two questions connected with this Sup-
plementary Estimate. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of labour, and I should like to ask him whether this extra amount of £450,000 does not represent employment for about 4,500 people. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has said that there are other crops in agriculture which would provide a great deal of labour, but is it not the fact that sugar beet employs seven men per 100 acres whereas the average number employed on a farm under ordinary circumstances is two men with one boy for each 100 acres? Are we not, therefore, giving more labour by giving some 4,500 men work in the fields and factories by this Suplementary Estimate than has ever been the case in any special scheme to provide £1,000,000 and give work only to some 3,000 or 4,000 men. Again, is not some of this subsidy passed on to the consumer? Under the 1928 Act I believe that about one-sixth is passed on——

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is now getting dangerously near being out of order.

Captain HEILGERS: I will not pursue that point any further. I am content to leave the matter as it is.

6.38 p.m.

Sir ALAN McLEAN: Some hon. Members have expressed alarm at the prospect of an enormously increased acreage for sugar beet. One hon. Member suggested that the acreage should be doubled. I do not think it is possible for the factories to have dealt with such a large increase. It is quite true that by increased efficiency they are using more and more sugar beet and that growers are getting a better tonnage per acre and also a better percentage of sugar content, but there is a limit to that, and the factories have set a clear line as to the amount of beet-sugar they can handle in any given season. They are now being offered contracts for more than they can handle. The amount that they can handle they are handling now, and I do not think that existing factories could possibly handle anything like double the present acreage.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the case that this Supplementary Estimate for an increase in the cultivation of beet sugar
has had an advantageous effect on other branches of agriculture, and that employment in various other districts has been increased?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the increase in employment which is a result of this Supplementary Estimate is any different from an increase in employment as a result of the original subsidy.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: In regard to the question as to whether in fact the acreage could have been doubled and a correspondingly larger subsidy demanded from Parliament, there are many limiting factors, beyond the amount of money voted. I do not think that the fund available would have in any way sufficed in this last year to carry out any large expansion of acreage. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) spent some time in referring to the disorderly nature of the White Paper which has been issued, really an innocent little document to draw down such condemnation. I hope that it is not disorderly, and all the more so because the footnote to which he drew attention, and which was in his opinion so disorderly, is exactly the same footnote as was included in all previous Estimates, including the Estimate of the Cabinet of which he was a Member.

Sir H. SAMUEL: If I was disorderly then, it is disorderly now.

Mr. ELLIOT: I hesitate to say that my right hon. Friend was not only disorderly then but was dishonest, which was one of the charges he made against this footnote. I will assume that both these suggestions were made in a Pickwickian

sense. If I am dishonest, then he is dishonest; if I am disorderly, he is disorderly. I am content to stand at the bar of public opinion in the company of such a financial purist as the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to his observations on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) was correct and that it refers to the last of the 10 campaigns. The remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear the interpretation that he was referring in both the clauses of his sentence to what would happen after the expiration of the subsidy, and not to the termination of the Act.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Then there will be an inquiry before we are asked to continue the subsidy?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am not going to be led into a discussion on legislation because the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that would be very disorderly indeed. I do not propose to follow his alluring red herring. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) asked whether this did not represent a substantial increase in employment. The total employment given by the subsidy is 45,000 man years, and, therefore, this Supplementary represents actually a larger figure than the 4,500 men which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. It means a total of about 6,500.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £449,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 243.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[6.43 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middieshro., W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peake, Captain Osbert


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Goldie, Noel B.
Peat, Charles U.


Albery, Irving James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Granville, Edgar
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greene, William P. C.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Apsley, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph [...]
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hartland, George A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rankin, Robert


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rickards, George William


Bilndell, James
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burghley, Lord
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burnett, John George
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Levy, Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Lewis, Oswald
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Llewellin, Major John J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Castiereagh, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smithers, Waldron


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerset, Thomas


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Soper, Richard


Clarry, Reginald George
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Conant, R. J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cook, Thomas A.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cooke, Douglas
McKie, John Hamilton
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Cooper, A. Duff
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Storey, Samuel


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Crooke, J. Smedley
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Crossley, A. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Train, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tree, Ronald


Donner, P. W.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Doran, Edward
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Turton, Robert Hugh


Drewe, Cedric
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Morgan, Robert H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Eastwood, John Francis
Morrison, William Shephard
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Moss, Captain H. J.
Whiteside, Borns Noel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Nall, Sir Joseph
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Elmley Viscount
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Withers, Sir John James


Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard
North, Edward T.
Womersley, Walter James


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nunn, William
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Fox, Sir Gifford
O'Connor, Terence James



Fremantle, Sir Francis
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.



Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1932.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,366 15s. 7d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1933:

Class III.
Amount to be voted.




£
s.
d.


Vote 7. County Courts
…
10
0
0


Class VI.





Vote 7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
…
82
14
9


Vote 8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
…
7,274
0
10




7,366
15
7"

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the Committee are aware, this Vote arises out of accounts for the previous year which show excess of expenditure in one or two small items. The appropriate Ministers are here to answer any questions that may arise. The Public Accounts Committee, in accordance with the usual procedure, have certified the transactions and reported that they see no objection to the Vote.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment I shall call is that at the bottom of page 858, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), and other hon. Members.

CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Committees.)

6.53 p.m.

Mr. RICKARDS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from "Board," to "any," in line 14, and to insert:
as follows:

(a) five members of the textile industry;
(b) two members representing the chemical industry;
(c) two members representing chemical science;
(d) two members representing."

I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few minutes, but as Chair-
man of a fairly large firm I do know something about the working of this industry. Frankly we actual users of the dyes consider that this constitution of the committees is of great, if not vital importance. Do not think for one moment that we are against the dyestuff makers being helped and protected. On the contrary we are all in favour of them. In fact we should be very dog-in-in-the-manger if we were not, because we people in the textile trade—I am speaking of wool and worsted; the firm of which I am chairman dyes nothing else—realise that tariffs have absolutely saved our trade. Speaking of my own firm I know how, since tariffs were put on, we have employed many more hands and have been able to pay far better wages. We want the Bradford trade to grow and lead the world, but we also want the dyestuffs to do well. They have our very best wishes. But I do not think that any industry in England has deserved more than we have the good will of the Government and this House and the public as a whole. Our operatives are as good as any in the world. I do not think there is any big industry in which there has been as little time wasted over strikes and lock-outs, and as an employer I would say here how the unions have done all they could to help the trade.
As regards the employers, I do not think there is anyone trying harder than we are to get together and solve our difficulties without outside help. What is possibly of more importance than anything in this case is that there is no body of men who have tried harder to meet the dyestuffs people and to do everything possible to get rid of any difficulties, so as to make this scheme work. The point I wish to make is this: I do want the Government to understand that we are not out to be tiresome or to make mischief, but we do feel that this is a matter of vital importance to us. We hope that the Government will be willing to accept what we practical people consider to be a very reasonable and fair Amendment.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
Unfortunately, during the Committee stage of the Bill the effort we made to get such an Amendment as this dis-
cussed was ruled out of order by the Chairman. I would like it to be known that we are moving the Amendment because of a very important answer to a Parliamentary Question which was given by the President of the Board of Trade, in which he intimated to us that practically everybody on this Development Committee was a dye-maker, and that only two were dye-users. If the Bill is allowed to go through as it is now drafted without this Amendment, it will be possible for the Government to do as they have previously done: to overweight the committee with dye-makers and to leave practically nobody on it to represent the textile industries, which are very large dye-users. In asking that five members of the textile industry should be placed on this committee, we are asking for a very small minority, and simply that that small minority may state their views and enable the views of the textile industry to be put forward.
In moving this Amendment we are not in any way expressing any views which are contrary to those of a protective character which we have expressed many times in this House; nor are we trying to deprive the dye-makers of that protection which we believe they should have. All we are asking is that on this Development Committee, which we regard as of first-rate importance, those who are in the textile industry itself should be adequately represented in order that their views may be placed before the committee and fairly considered by it. For those reasons, I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am absolutely in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. It is essential that, in the working of this Bill, there should be good will between the users of dyes and the makers, and that there should be a spirit of amity in the Committee. I am, however, not quite sure that the Amendment as put down on the Paper will be the best thing in the long run for the textile industry. The difficulty when a certain number is stated for the Committee is that the number on the Committee is thereby limited. The Clause, as we read it, leaves it to the Board of Trade to appoint what they consider adequate representation of all the different interests.
While those of us who are interested in the textile trade will have served our purpose by bringing before the Parliamentary Secretary the absolute necessity for adequate representation of the textile trade——

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Member aware that the present Development Committee consists of some 12 dye-makers and only two dye-users?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: We discussed that question in Committee upstairs. Let the hon. Gentleman remember that this is not the Development Committee that existed before, but the linking together of the Licensing Committee and the Development Committee to form one committee, which will be a Development Committee. While I sympathise with the intentions of my hon. Friends and am quite at one with them as far as the purpose of the Amendment goes, I am not certain that it would be of advantage. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us in his reply upon this Amendment that we can be sure that all the different branches of the textile trade will be adequately represented on this Committee.

7.5 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I rise to support the Amendment, because I believe that this Committee should not be weighted by the industry which is to derive the chief advantage from it. It is of tremendous importance to the textile trade that it should have on the Committee representatives of the various sections of the textile industry who can speak as consumers. There will be decided at various meetings questions which are advanced by conflicting interests. Undoubtedly a monopoly of this character is fraught with tremendous peril unless there is constant vigilance as to what is done. I hope, therefore, that as the textile industry is suffering fierce competition from all parts of the world and battling to find new markets which it can only find when its costs of production are lowered, the Committee will see that the costs of dyestuffs are not weighted unduly against the textile industry. Seeing that the chemical industry will gain great advantages from the Committee including permanence for its operations, I hope that this Amendment, which has been put down for the purpose of helping the tex-
tile industry, will be conceded. I am certain that if this is done some of the dissatisfaction over the Bill will be removed and help will be given to the textile industry.

7.8 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): If we could look into the future and know the course of industrial development, it would no doubt be a matter of simplicity to organise the all-perfect committee to deal with it. It is precisely because there are so many unknown factors that the Board of Trade has deliberately presented the Bill with the constitution of this Development Committee elastic, leaving it to the Board to determine how many members of any particular section of the industry can best serve in an advisory capacity on a committee which has not executive functions. It is essential to point out to the House what the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) has already pointed out: that we are not here dealing with the Licensing Committee, a users' committee, a committee with executive powers. We are dealing with a committee, to which the Board of Trade may refer—there is no obligation on it to refer—for advice and assistance on the development of the industry as a whole. That is not a committee on which it is at all necessary to balance the interests carefully. It is a committee on which the Board of Trade may desire far more help from a chemical section or from a manufacturing section at one time, far more help from a using section at another time. The point of which the hon. Members who moved this Amendment appear to lose sight is that the constitution of the committee may be required to be different at different times for the development of the industry. If you put in a fixed, stated constitution, you overlook the whole power of the Board of Trade to make the punishment fit the crime—to make the committee fit the necessity for which the committee exists.
Let me shortly point out to the Committee that, under the Act of 1920, Section 2 (6), the Board of Trade is alone the judge of how many are to serve on the committee. That Act says in terms:
The Board shall constitute a committee of persons concerned in the trades of dye-
maker or dye-user, and of suck other persons not directly concerned in such trades as the Board may determine.
Secondly, the Board of Trade has at present absolute power to determine the numbers, and when it comes to the new Bill we shall follow the advice given by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) will recognise the novelty of that expression. The Import Duties Advisory Committee in their report—I quote from page 9, paragraph 18—recommended that there should be a certain number of persons representative of the textile and heavy chemical industries, chemical science and Departments of State; and in paragraph 19, that the Board of Trade should appoint an additional panel of members. Having regard to the fact that it is quite impossible to say in advance what lines the industry may require for development, it is equally impossible in advance to say which side ought to be weighted, which side ought to have more representation. The point is that the Board of Trade is not obliged to pay attention to the recommendations of the committee, which is an advisory committee and not an executive one.
Any Amendment of this kind would very largely defeat the object which the hon. Members who moved it have in view. The Amendment is against the interests of those who are moving it. While I am in sympathy with every branch of the industry having fair representation, I can say that the Board of Trade propose to appoint to this committee from time to time exactly such people as they think fit. The members will not be appointed to represent specific interests; they will be appointed for the purpose of advising the Board, and it is quite impossible to say whether we want five, three, or two members. In those circumstances I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment, while I assure the hon. Gentleman who moved it that the Board of Trade are fully alive to the needs of the users and intend to see that the users have every opportunity of placing their case in every way they think fit.

Mr. REMER: On behalf of my hon. Friend and myself, in view of that explanation, we desire to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.)

7.13 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert:

"(2) Upon receipt of a report made under the foregoing sub-section the Board of Trade may by regulation make such provisions as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of fixing the prices to be charged.
(3) Regulations made under this section may, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision—

(a) confer or impose on any person or body of persons such powers and duties as the Board of Trade may consider necessary or expedient for effecting the purpose aforesaid, and contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Board of Trade to be necessary or expedient for securing the effective exercise and discharge of the powers and duties of the Board, and of any powers and duties so conferred or imposed as aforesaid; and
(b) provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the regulations, so, however, that the maximum penalty which may be inflicted for any offence against any such regulations shall be imprisonment for a term of one month, or a fine of one hundred pounds, or both such imprisonment and fine, together with the forfeiture of any articles in respect of which the offence was committed or of any profits accruing to the person committing the offence in respect of the transaction to which the offence relates, or the forfeiture of both such articles and such profits;

Provided that no such regulations shall alter any existing procedure in criminal cases or confer any right to punish by fine or imprisonment without trial.
(4) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under or to the making of any new regulation."

I trust that the House will not be unduly alarmed at the length of the Amendment. Unlike other Amendments that have been moved, my Amendment does at any rate explain itself. It is culled from an Act of Parliament which was passed in this House in 1921. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say what he said upstairs,
that my Amendment was novel. When an Amendment moved in this House has already found a place in an Act of Parliament several years before, it cannot be a novel one. I shall not do what the hon. Gentleman who moved the last Amendment did: collapse in the face of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. I was astonished at the easy way in which the hon. Gentlemen accepted the statements about their Amendment. If I had moved it, I should not have withdrawn it quite so easily. I hope now to justify my Amendment by explaining it.
The first thing I want to say is that it is put forward in all seriousness. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that the quarrel between the dyestuff makers and the colour-users arises in the main from the high price charged for colours. My Amendment deals specifically with those prices. I have already said that the terms of this Amendment are already to be found in an Act of Parliament. I have taken the wording from the first Section of the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, 1931, and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to accept our Amendment provided always that he has the authority of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Throughout these proceedings he always rests on the recommendations of that committee. In fact, to the hon. Gentleman, the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee are almost like the Sermon on the Mount to everybody else.
The provisions of this Bill have created a great deal of discussion, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire, because there is, in fact, a battle going on between the textile industry of Lancashire and Yorkshire on one hand and on the other hand the monopoly created by these duties in favour of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. That battle has now been raging for some years, and my Amendment would have the effect of satisfying the colour-users that they were not going to be exploited in future by the monopoly of the Imperial Chemical Industries. Once you put on a duty against any commodity you at once create a monopoly in your own country, and nobody will deny that in this case the monopoly of dyestuff making has gravitated largely into the hands of one firm in this country and that they have now a grip on it beyond any question
whatever. We then have the problem that while the makers represented by the Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, are doing well out of the manufacture of colours, the users in Lancashire and Yorkshire are finding it hard to make ends meet. They say with a great deal of reason that if this monopoly were destroyed they would be better able to compete with foreign countries in textile goods.
These facts constitute a very strong reason for my Amendment, and if I desired another argument in its favour I would take one from the mouth of the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury), whom I am pleased to see in his place, because I think he knows more about the details of this business than any other Member of the House of Commons. He said in Committee that there had been an increase in the price of colours manufactured in this country of 52½ per cent. in 18 months, and the colour-makers I gather apprehend that the price may be further increased. There is every reason to suppose that unless Parliament is careful we may give this dyestuff-making monopoly further power over the colour-users in connection with prices. The Board of Trade will require to be very careful as to what action they take in relation to this Conflict. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary did not give adequate reasons against a similar Amendment in Committee. This monopoly, I should say, is so powerful that they have actually established a cartel not only between this country and one or two other countries abroad, but a cartel by which they have a grip on the manufacture of these dyes almost throughout Europe.
The hon. Gentleman in his reply in Committee made an extraordinary suggestion. One does not expect much at any time from this Government by way of intelligence, but his statement on that occasion was one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard from a representative of any Government. The allegation was made by the colour-users that the monopoly created in this country in favour of the dyestuff-makers made it possible for the makers to charge higher prices in this country than they were charging to users on the
Continent, for exactly the same quality of dyestuffs. The Parliamentary Secretary then turned round and said: "We can get over all that in this way. If an English firm sells the same kind of commodity abroad for a smaller price than they charge at home it should be bought back again from abroad at the lower price and used here at home." The hon. Gentleman argued that the whole thing in true capitalist style would settle itself. That is a very thin argument from one of the most intelligent representatives of this Government—though that is not saying very much for the hon. Gentleman. I think I have made out a case for this Amendment, and I shall be astonished if the Parliamentary Secretary does not receive it with open arms, caress it and put it in the Bill so that this problem of prices may be settled once for all.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the Amendment, which seems to me to be Socialistic in principle. While I hold that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, as far as prices of dyestuffs are concerned, are altogether wrong in what they say in their report, and are stating what is contrary to the opinions of the users of dyes, yet I would prefer the Clause in the Bill as it stands to this Amendment. Under the Bill if a complaint were laid before the committee that prices were too high, they would have power under the Import Duties Act to suggest the cancellation of this Measure, and that would be much better than referring the matter to the Board of Trade and fixing prices. My attitude all along has been that this Bill is not necessary, and that the time has passed when it would serve any useful purpose, but if the Import Duties Advisory Committee think that charges are exorbitant I would prefer that they should have power to recommend the cancellation of this Measure.

7.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I quite agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) with regard to the cartel, and it is true that prices have gone up 52½ per cent. during the last 18 months and that there would appear to be nothing to pre-
vent the price being put at whatever level they please in the future. In Committee, however, the Parliamentary Secretary told us definitely that if an attempt were made to raise prices unnecessarily to the users the Government would open the floodgates and allow colours to come in free from abroad, which would eventually prevent any such action being taken by the dyestuff makers. I am willing to rest on that assurance.

7.23 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: In order that the House may have this Amendment in its proper proportions it is necessary to give a few words of explanation. In the first place, the Dyestuffs Act is an Act establishing a prohibition, and the way in which that prohibition is operating is rather in the nature of a sluice gate. The prohibition can be made complete, it can be made partial or it can be removed altogether. The Board of Trade has the power by licence to authorise the importation of what would otherwise be prohibited so that the Board of Trade has the power to check the operation of the prohibition by enlarging the aperture through which goods may come. In this Bill power is taken to deal with complaints by consumers. One of the matters inquired into by the Import Duties Advisory Committee was, "Should this Act, originally intended for a duration of 10 years but extended year by year for a certain period he made permanent?" They said, "Yes, we think it should, but there are certain anxieties on the part of users as to whether or not they might be exploited." So the committee, in paragraph 20 of their report, said:
If some provision could be made for complaints by any responsible body of consumers as to exploitation and if these could be addressed to an independent authority who would have the power of investigation we think the matter would largely be met.
Accordingly there is a provision in the Bill that if a representation is made to the committee by any body appearing to be representative of substantial consumers that there has been exploitation then the committee shall make a report to the Board of Trade. Now along comes the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and says, "I prescribe what the Board of Trade shall do when they get the report. I will say exactly what they are to do. I will assume that the report is going to be about prices." But
that is a grotesque assumption. The report might not have anything to do with prices. It might deal with quality, or conditions attached to delivery, or a thousand and one things other than price. I entirely decline as the representative of the Board of Trade, which has power to deal with this report, to have that power limited, to have my wings clipped as it were, and to be told that I am to be bound by something taken out of a Foodstuffs Act of 1921. In the case of foodstuffs very different arguments might apply. There is no cartel in the supply of foodstuffs. There is no question of foodstuffs being supplied by the same supplier at different prices in different areas, or, if so, there are methods of dealing with it.
This is an attempt by the hon. Member to give to the Board of Trade additional powers but the Board of Trade say, "Thank you very much, but we do not want to be given powers which in one sense are more than we ask for and in another sense are unduly limiting and restrictive in their effect." It is much better that the Board of Trade should see the report before it determines what is the most appropriate remedy for the evils which are brought to its attention. It is impossible in advance to define the high-water mark, to indicate a point and to say, "This far shall thy powers go but no further." We believe it would be better statesmanship to leave it to the Board of Trade to forge the weapon for bringing about satisfaction if exploitation of the consumer has been proved. I again call the attention of the House to the fact that if a complaint has anything to do with withholding supplies, with imposing conditions, or with excessive price, one of the most effective methods of dealing with it is to remove the prohibition at once on all these goods, and allow dyestuffs to come in if necessary from the United States or even—what would be an anathema to some hon. Members—from Japan. Do not let me be misunderstood. There are dyestuff works of considerable size in those countries, and at present there is very little sale in this country of dyestuffs made in those countries because of our own production. It is precisely because we are facilitating the increase in that production that the risk is less, but, if a cartel or any other body is to impose conditions which amount to
an exploitation of the consumer, then the Board of Trade have powers which are adequate to deal with that situation. This is an attempt, I have no doubt well meant and honest, to assist the Government, but we consider that we

have wider powers without accepting this Amendment, and I must ask the House, therefore, to resist it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 222.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Banfield, John William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dagger, George
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Mainwaring, William Henry



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mabane, William


Albery, Irving James
Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fleming, Edward Lasceiles
McKie, John Hamilton


Apsley, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Goldie, Noel B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Blindell, James
Greene, William P. C.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Borodale, Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morgan, Robert H.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bracken, Brendan
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harbord, Arthur
Munro, Patrick


Burghley, Lord
Hartland, George A.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
North, Edward T.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
O'Connor, Terence James


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peake, Captain Osbert


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume. Sir George Hopwood
Peat, Charles U.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Penny, Sir George


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Petherick, M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Conant, R. J. E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Craven-Ellis, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rea, Walter Russell


Crooke, J. Smedley
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leckie, J. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, John R.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Levy, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Rickards, George William


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Runge, North Cecil


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Salt, Edward W.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stones, James
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Savery, Samuel Servington
Storey, Samuel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strauss, Edward A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Withers, Sir John James


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles



Somerset, Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Train, John
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Soper, Richard
Tree, Ronald



Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: May I ask, with regard to Clause 2, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), if these colours will be put on the free list and not be subject to prohibitions?

7.40 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I hope the House will now give us the Third Reading of this Bill. The matter has been very much before the House of recent years, and it cannot be pretended that there is any case for the dyestuff industry which has not been fully represented in Debate, nor any question arising from it which has not been fully and freely ventilated in this House and in Committee upstairs. The hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) asks a question with regard to certain intermediate colours. The answer is that steps have already been taken, by way of an application by the Colour Users' Association to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, for the transfer of these materials to the free list, and that application was published on the 14th February. In that notice it was stated that any representations with regard to the application could be made to the Committee not later than the 1st March. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the intermediate colours, including the particular naphthols which were the subject matter of an Amendment which he moved in Committee upstairs, are before the Import Duties Advisory Committee for transfer to the free list, and the matter is, of course, under that Committee's jurisdiction.
The Bill follows the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee
and has been drafted to give effect to those recommendations. Unless there are any questions which any hon. Member desires to raise, I would refer to the points that have been discussed at length, as hon. Members who were Members of the Committee will recollect, on the various Amendments that were before that Committee.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but we on this side intend to be consistent. I hope to prove that we are consistent. I ought to say that this Measure in the first instance was a temporary Measure. In the original Dyestuffs Act it was stipulated definitely that it should only last for 10 years. It was never intended to prevail as an Act of Parliament except to help the dye-making industry to establish itself in this country. We on this side claim that the dyestuff making industry has established itself long ago. In fact, it has established itself in such a way as to create a monopoly, and by creating a monopoly under cover of the prohibition of dyestuffs from abroad, it has increased the prices to the colour users of this country out of all proportion. That, in short, is our opposition to the present Bill.
In Committee upstairs we had a representative of the War Office present. That was rather ominous. He represented the War Office on this assumption, I presume, that the dye-making industry is essential for the purpose of providing the Service Departments with stuff for ammunition. The colour users, therefore, are right in saying that they have been exploited by two elements. First of all, the Government want the dye-making industry to maintain itself in an efficient
position in order that the Service Departments may always be certain of the necessary ammunition in case of trouble with some other country. On the other hand, the Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have without a doubt established a monopoly behind this prohibition, and there is also no doubt that that monopoly is operating unfairly to the colour users of Lancashire and Yorkshire. For these reasons, we intend to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I think it ought to be known to the House that all the bodies representing the consumers of dyestuffs are opposed to this Bill. They are simply accepting it as inevitable, but they will watch that the provisions which defend the interests of the consumers are fully carried out. I do not say this in any way as a threat, but the Government can expect serious trouble if the consumers' interests, particularly in the textile industry for which I am speaking, are not watched. I want to say a word or two about the question of intermediates, in regard to which there is a tremendous grievance. We cannot see why an intermediate coming into this country to be used as a dyestuff should be subject to a duty whereas the dyestuff can come in free. Surely the licence ought to be issued for one of two things, either that it is not manufactured in this country or is manufactured at such a price as to make it prohibitive. I trust that when the Bill becomes an Act the interests of the consumers of dyestuffs will be looked after as much as the interests of those who produce dyestuffs. I have made several long speeches on this subject and have opposed the Bill from beginning to end. I intend to join my friends above the Gangway in opposition to it, but I hope that if it goes through it will be worked in the true interests of both sections of the industry.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I am authorised to speak on behalf of those of us on this side of the House who opposed this Bill on Second Reading, and went into the Opposition Lobby. The House will understand that this is very difficult legislation by reference, and it is hard to understand exactly what the powers
of the Board of Trade are. It came out in the explanations in Committee and in the explanation of the Parliamentry Secretary of the Board of Trade to-night that the Board of Trade have all the power not merely to put these dyestuffs on the Free List, but to take action on one of a number of grounds, not the least of which is the ground of price. There are other matters of even more vital importance, and we are completely satisfied that the Board of Trade have now all the powers about which we were anxious. I can say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that that enables us to put Parliamentary questions to him, which we shall not hesitate to do if we find the Department is not dealing with the complaints of our constituents as we think that they ought to do. We have no doubt that we shall receive courteous attention to these questions as we always do. Therefore, while we voted against the Bill on Second Reading, it is not our intention to go into the Lobby to-night against the Government.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. A. C. REED: I would not have ventured to intervene but for a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He said that there was not a colour user who was not against the Bill. I happen to be in an industry which is a large user of colours. I have been for the past 30 years a very large user of colour, and when I remembered the conditions of the dye industry before the War and the steps which have been taken since to build up the industry, and when I remembered further the care and attention which has been given to the building up of that industry and the success which has been achieved, I as a colour user was delighted when this Bill was introduced to protect the industry. I speak as a user who has had the most courteous support from the dye industry. Incidentally, it is not the monopoly of the one firm. There are many other dye makers.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The words I used, I think, were, "no organised body of colour users."

Mr. REED: I am speaking for the paper industry and they are not in any shape or form against the Bill, although, according to the hon. Member for South Bradford, it will be injurious to their
business. We have found it a tremendous benefit. I would like the House to know that we have not in our own mills found it necessary to buy one ounce of colour outside Great Britain since the War. That has been the result of the Government's policy, and I cordially support the Bill and hope it will have a big majority on Third Reading.

7.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: May I put myself right with the House? The hon. Member has put forward an argument for the paper industry. I have been arguing from the point of view of the

textile industry. I know that the paper industry can get all the colours it wants because the colours they use are totally different from those used in the textile industry, and are in the majority of cases inferior.

Mr. REED: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is incorrect. The dyes we use in the paper industry are most of them identical with those used in the textile industry.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 38.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[7.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William


Albery, Irving James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Captain Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Harbord, Arthur
Penny, Sir George


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Petherick, M.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Balniel, Lord
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Blindell, James
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Borodale, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rickards, George William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burghley, Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Burnett, John George
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Leckle, J. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Levy, Thomas
Salt, Edward W.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cook, Thomas A.
Mabane, William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Craven-Ellis, William
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somerset, Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Donner, P. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Doran, Edward
Manningham-Buffer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Soper, Richard


Drewe, Cedric
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Elmley, Viscount
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stanley, Hon. O. F C. (Westmorland)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stones, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morgan, Robert H.
Storey, Samuel


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morrison, William Shephard
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Goldie, Noel B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Munro, Patrick
Tate, Mavis Constance


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nall, Sir Joseph
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Withers, Sir John James


Train, John
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Tree, Ronald
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Whyte, Jardine Bell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies.


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wise, Alfred R.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Banfield, John William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Parkinson, John Allen

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eight o'Clock.